The High Court discharged an interim injunction obtained by Brian McDonagh against Ulster Bank Ireland Limited, finding that he had culpably failed to disclose material information when seeking the order without notice to the bank. The court also said the balance of convenience favoured keeping receivers in place and that it would refuse the interlocutory injunction on that basis.
Mr Justice Keane gave judgment on 22 October 2014 on two applications: McDonagh’s request for an interlocutory injunction pending trial, and the bank’s application to set aside an interim injunction granted ex parte on 1 October.
The dispute concerns a 2013 compromise agreement relating to debts secured against properties, including lands at Kilpeddar, County Wicklow. McDonagh alleged that the bank breached the agreement by debiting €325,000 from his account, failing to remove receivers appointed over two properties, and refusing consent to a proposed sale of the Kilpeddar lands. The bank disputed his claims and said McDonagh had also breached obligations under the agreement. The judge said those competing claims could not be resolved on the motions before him.
In seeking the ex parte order, McDonagh had not disclosed information about when he initialled the agreement and when it was due to take effect, or prior correspondence in which the bank said the agreement was not operative earlier. He also asserted that receivers appointed in March 2014 were still acting, although deeds exhibited by the bank showed their discharge on 22 April 2014. The judge noted that not having received confirmation of discharge was different from showing that the receivers continued to act.
The court also considered undisclosed correspondence about marketing the Kilpeddar lands and a claimed €1.501 million offer, as well as the personal connection between McDonagh and a director of the proposed purchaser, Granja Limited. The judge found these matters material to the application. He did not find that the non-disclosure was deliberate, but concluded it was culpable and discharged the interim injunction.
Separately, applying the interlocutory injunction guidelines, the judge accepted that there was a bona fide question to be tried. He nevertheless found that the balance of convenience favoured the existing position, with receivers in place. The court therefore refused the interlocutory injunction. The judgment did not determine the parties’ underlying claims about breach of the compromise agreement.