The High Court has restrained the defendants from selling 61 Adelaide Road, Dublin 2, pending trial of M&F Finance (Ireland) Limited’s proceedings, while requiring M&F to preserve and account for rents collected there. The court refused Thomas O’Connor’s application for an injunction over properties connected to his separate case.
In a judgment delivered on 8 November 2022, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts considered interlocutory applications in two proceedings heard together. The cases were not formally consolidated, and the court stressed that it was not deciding the underlying factual or legal claims, which are for trial.
M&F holds 61 Adelaide Road as trustee for O’Connor’s personal pension fund. The property has 16 apartments. The court found that M&F had raised a fair issue about the terms governing transfer of its loan and the sequence of the receivers’ discharge and reappointment. It also considered the property’s role as a long-term pension asset and the difficulty of calculating a loss if it were sold before trial.
The injunction preserves the existing rent arrangement: M&F may continue collecting rent, but must account for it to the defendants and keep it separately preserved so it is available if they succeed or toward repayment of the debt. The judge said the parties would be heard on the final form of the order, including how rents should be held.
O’Connor sought to prevent dealings with properties in his proceedings. The judge said he had only narrowly met the threshold for a fair issue to be tried, partly because fuller versions of transfer documents might support some of his claims. But she found damages would be an adequate remedy if he later succeeded at trial. The court therefore refused his interlocutory relief. That decision did not resolve his challenge to the transfers or receivers’ appointments.
M&F also sought broad inspection of documents said to show Promontoria’s interest in the loans and mortgages. The judge refused its request for all documents needed to obtain legal advice as too broad, and held that the current redacted versions satisfied the inspection right under section 91 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. She also refused to make inspection a condition of appointing or retaining a receiver, and rejected inspection under Order 50, rule 4 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
However, the judge directed the defendants to provide an affidavit confirming that their solicitors on record had inspected the unredacted transfer documents and explaining each redaction they wished to retain. Headings should be unredacted; recitals, definitions and interpretation provisions should generally be disclosed unless clearly justified. Third-party information may remain redacted. Commercially sensitive information, including the portfolio or loan price, may remain redacted for now; the court may hear further submissions on whether that price is needed.
The court listed the matter for mention on 23 November to address the rent arrangements, the affidavit timetable, trial directions and costs. The judgment made no final determination of the parties’ substantive disputes.