Judgment: 2025-05-13 · Court archive

Supreme Court lifts 15-year injunction over Wexford property but says owner’s shareholder cannot retake possession

Supreme Court · [2025] IESC 18

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Tom Kavanagh
  • Martin Power (Defendant)
What

Supreme Court lifts 15-year injunction over Wexford property but says owner’s shareholder cannot retake possession

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Slaney House
  • High Court
  • Supreme Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Martin Power, the company’s sole shareholder, resisted the receivership and appealed the injunction. The Supreme Court stressed that the High Court had been entitled to grant the order in 2010. At that point there was a mortgage debenture, an apparently valid appointment of a receiver and no obvious basis for Power’s challenge.

The Supreme Court has discharged a High Court injunction that had remained in place for 15 years over a commercial property at Slaney House, Custom House Quay, Wexford.

The injunction was obtained in May 2010 by Tweedswood Limited and receiver Tom Kavanagh after Ulster Bank’s predecessor appointed Kavanagh as receiver over the property in August 2009. Tweedswood had borrowed almost €900,000, and Slaney House was its only asset.

Martin Power, the company’s sole shareholder, resisted the receivership and appealed the injunction. The Supreme Court stressed that the High Court had been entitled to grant the order in 2010. At that point there was a mortgage debenture, an apparently valid appointment of a receiver and no obvious basis for Power’s challenge.

What changed the position was what followed. The substantive proceedings have still never been tried. The property has neither been sold nor rented since the injunction was granted, has generated no income towards the debt, and has continued to incur security, insurance and receivership costs. Wexford County Council issued a dereliction notice in May 2023.

Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell held that a party who obtains an interlocutory injunction — a temporary order pending trial — cannot simply retain its benefits indefinitely. That duty was especially strong here because the injunction effectively gave the receiver the possession sought as final relief.

The court found that the receiver had not taken adequate steps to ensure the underlying litigation was brought to a timely conclusion. Power had also failed to progress his appeal when urged to do so, but that did not prevent the court addressing the prolonged delay.

The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal and discharged the 2010 injunction.

The practical effect is limited. Power does not obtain possession. Tweedswood is in liquidation, the receiver remains in possession and may seek further court orders if anyone attempts to occupy the premises.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review