The Court of Appeal has dismissed Brendan O’Reilly and Darren O’Reilly’s appeal against the refusal of interim injunctions concerning two properties in County Meath. The court affirmed the High Court order. It did not decide whether the loans’ “ECB rate” meant the minimum bid rate or the broader main refinancing operations rate; that dispute remains for trial.
The plaintiffs had asked the High Court to direct the defendants to give up possession of the properties or to restrain them from marketing or selling them while the case continued. The High Court refused relief after finding no fair issue to be tried. It also refused a separate request for an interim injunction pending appeal.
The properties secured two Ulster Bank loans advanced in 2006, for €262,000 and €323,000. The plaintiffs’ repayments fell into default. Ulster Bank transferred the loans to Promontoria (Finn) Limited in 2015, and receivers were appointed over the properties. The plaintiffs dispute the interest charged and aspects of the receivers’ appointments.
The plaintiffs allege that the loan terms tied interest to an ECB rate that ceased to exist in October 2008. Relying on an accountant’s report, they argued that interest charged after that date was unlawful, or that the lender could charge only a 1.35% margin. The defendants maintained that the loans tracked the main refinancing operations rate and that the ECB had changed how it calculated that rate, rather than abolishing it. The Court of Appeal said the contractual meaning of “ECB rate” and the parties’ competing evidence should be addressed at trial, and declined to rule on whether the High Court was right to find no fair issue to be tried.
Instead, the appeal turned on the balance of justice. The Court of Appeal held that damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs, whose properties were commercial investments. It also cited the substantial outstanding debt, the long period without loan repayments, the plaintiffs’ receipt of rental income without accounting to the receivers, and the prospect that the case was now closer to trial. The court considered these factors outweighed the case for interim relief, even if a fair issue to be tried had been established.
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It proposed that the defendants receive their appeal costs, subject to any party seeking a different order within 28 days of receiving the electronic judgment. The source describes the judgment as unapproved.