The Court of Appeal has dismissed Seamus Murphy’s appeal against an interlocutory order restraining him from obstructing a receiver or trespassing on secured property in County Meath. The court left the High Court order in place; it did not finally decide the disputed issues in the underlying proceedings.
The appeal concerned an order made by the High Court on 26 July 2016. That order refused Murphy permission to cross-examine the respondent receiver and a bank employee on their affidavits, and granted injunctions concerning the receiver’s work on part of Folio 22202F, County Meath. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which gave judgment on 23 July 2019.
Murphy had borrowed €228,000 from ACC Bank in 2006, secured by a mortgage over the folio. The bank said he defaulted and that a demand letter dated 8 April 2014 required repayment of €212,492.61. Murphy denied receiving the letter, disputed the amount said to be due and challenged the receiver’s appointment. He also disputed the receiver’s authority over one of three residential units. The receiver agreed that any interim relief should concern only the two units wholly within the folio, pending trial.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court judge had discretion to refuse cross-examination on an interlocutory application, where disputed facts did not need to be resolved definitively. It also concluded that the receiver had shown a strong arguable case for interim relief, whether or not the higher threshold for a mandatory injunction applied. The court noted evidence that the demand letter had been sent to Murphy’s stated address and a delivery record indicating delivery on 9 April 2014. It said Murphy could maintain his denial of receipt at the substantive hearing.
The appeal also concerned an error in an affidavit supporting the receiver’s application: it referred to account 1003 8071 rather than 1003 8073 and exhibited incorrect statements. A later affidavit from ACC Loan Management acknowledged and explained the error, provided corrected statements and said account 1003 8073 had fallen into arrears. It also stated that account 1003 8071 was separately in arrears. The Court of Appeal accepted that the correcting affidavit had been served and found the error, as corrected and explained, did not establish injustice or undermine the receiver’s interim case.
The court dismissed the appeal and declined to interfere with the High Court orders. Its decision left the disputed matters, including whether Murphy received the demand, for the substantive hearing.