The High Court has granted interlocutory relief to a receiver seeking control of two residential units at The Cottages, Grangeboyne, Kilmessan, County Meath, while leaving the validity of his appointment for trial.
Mr Justice David Keane made orders broadly in the terms sought by receiver Shane McCarthy, including orders concerning possession, interference with the receivership, access to the units, rents and property records. The judge said the orders should extend only to the two units wholly within Folio 22202F. He would hear the parties about any amendment needed to reflect that limit.
McCarthy was appointed receiver by ACC Bank plc, now ACC Loan Management Limited, on 1 May 2014. The borrower and property owner, Seamus Murphy, disputed the appointment. The bank had lent him €228,000 in 2006, secured by a mortgage over property described in the loan documents as three residential duplex units. The judgment records that the loan went into arrears in November 2011 and remained in arrears. The bank said it demanded immediate repayment in April 2014; Murphy denied receiving the demand and questioned whether it had been sent.
Murphy challenged the appointment on several grounds, including uncertainty about the property covered, the execution of the appointment deed, whether all three units fell within the relevant folio, the demand letter and whether the bank had transferred its rights. The judge noted conflicting expert views about the boundary and said that dispute could not be resolved on this application. The receiver proposed dealing only with the two units wholly within Folio 22202F pending trial.
The judge also refused Murphy’s application to cross-examine McCarthy and bank official John Ryan. He said cross-examination was not needed to decide the interlocutory applications, because the factual conflicts raised did not need resolution at this stage.
Keane J found the receiver had established a clear and strong prima facie case that his appointment was valid and that he was entitled to take possession without obstruction. He stressed that this was not a final decision on the claim or defences, and that the evidence and legal arguments at trial could be different and more extensive. He also found the balance of convenience favoured granting relief, noting the continuing default and accruing interest.
The underlying proceedings, issued in June 2015, seek possession, permanent injunctions and other relief, including damages for trespass. The interlocutory orders do not determine those claims or finally settle the disputed boundary and appointment issues.