The High Court has refused an application by Crossplan Investments Limited and Pat Halpin to stop the receiver of Merrion Hall from selling or transferring the property while their proceedings continue.
In a judgment delivered on 7 May 2013, Ms Justice Laffoy dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction. She did not decide whether the receiver had been validly appointed. That issue was due to be considered in separate proceedings listed in the Commercial Court for 11 June 2013.
The dispute concerns Nos. 50, 52, 54 and 56 Merrion Road in Ballsbridge, Dublin, a partly developed hotel known as Merrion Hall. Crossplan had borrowed from Irish Nationwide Building Society to acquire and develop the property. The lender later demanded €25,170,660.24, stating that payment was due by close of business on 17 February 2012. It appointed the receiver at 4pm that day after the debt remained unpaid.
Crossplan and Halpin argued that the appointment came before the demand deadline, when the debt had not yet become payable and the power to appoint a receiver did not exist. They also alleged substantial overcharging based on an incorrect EURIBOR rate. The judgment described that allegation as peripheral to the appointment issue. The receiver’s counsel submitted that the lender had complied with the mortgage terms and that “close of business” meant 4pm. The judge did not analyse those arguments in detail, proceeding on the assumption that the plaintiffs had raised a fair question for trial.
The receiver had marketed Merrion Hall and agreed to sell it, though the judgment said it was unclear when the contract was made. The purchaser was unwilling to complete while the appointment challenge remained unresolved, according to evidence before the court.
Justice Laffoy found that the plaintiffs had not shown that damages would be inadequate compensation if they ultimately succeeded. But she was not satisfied that the receiver would be adequately protected by the plaintiffs’ undertaking to pay damages if the injunction later proved unjustified. She also found that the balance of convenience did not favour an injunction, citing the risk of losing the sale, and concluded that the plaintiffs had delayed unreasonably in seeking to restrain it.
The order dismissed the injunction application only. The judgment did not determine the validity of the receiver’s appointment or the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.