The High Court has ordered the occupants of a County Clare property known as Landscape House to leave, after finding that joint receivers had made out a strong prima facie case for possession and related injunctions.
Mr Justice David Keane delivered the interlocutory ruling on 25 February 2015. The receivers, Michael Cotter and Luke Charleton, sought orders requiring the defendants to vacate the property, preventing them from entering it and restraining interference with the receivership. Their underlying proceedings also seek damages for trespass, but damages were not part of this motion.
The property, held by Keelgrove Construction Limited, comprises a main residence, nine apartments, outbuildings and about 60 acres of farmland. Keelgrove entered voluntary liquidation in November 2012. Allied Irish Banks appointed the receivers the following month under a 1999 mortgage debenture. The receivers said the property secured commercial lending and that €1,497,652.27 was due as of 3 March 2014, with interest continuing to accrue.
The dispute centred on a 2005 lease between Keelgrove and Landscape House Golf and Leisure Limited, covering a significant part of the property and described as the Landscape House Golf and Leisure Facility, also known as Clonlara Golf Club. The mortgage debenture required the bank’s prior written consent for leases or rights of occupation. The court noted that consent had not been obtained.
The defendants argued that the receivers and bank had later recognised or acquiesced in the lease through correspondence, including requests for rent and an attempted arrangement to amend the lease. The judge rejected that argument. He found that the receivers’ first rent letter was sent before they had seen the lease, and that a proposed amendment was never signed. The court also noted that no rent had been paid to the receivers.
Applying the strong prima facie case test for a mandatory injunction, the judge found the receivers met that threshold. He said there was a significant risk that the bank would lose the identified purchaser if the injunctions were refused, while the receivers offered an undertaking to compensate the defendants if the injunctions were later found to have been wrongly granted. He also found that continued occupation was obstructing the sale and frustrating the receivership.
The court rejected the defendants’ delay argument. It said the receivers’ undertaking as to damages would be received and then ordered the relief in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the motion: vacation of the property, restraint on trespass or entry, and restraint on interference with the receivers’ functions. The ruling determined the application for interlocutory relief; it did not resolve the underlying proceedings or damages claim.