The High Court found Pat Carty in contempt for breaching an injunction that barred him from obstructing a receiver’s access to lands in Rathduff, Rathnure, County Wexford. The court authorised the plaintiff to issue an order for Carty’s arrest and detention until he purged his contempt and was discharged by further court order.
Mr Justice Allen delivered the judgment on 12 November 2018, following a committal application brought by receiver David Van Dessel. The application alleged that Carty had failed to obey an injunction made by Mr Justice Gilligan on 16 March 2017. That injunction restrained Carty and others with notice from obstructing the receiver, interfering with the receivership property or the receiver’s work, and entering or trespassing on the lands. It also prohibited collecting rent or holding himself out as entitled to let the property.
The lands included three folios in County Wexford, one covering about 52 acres. The judgment recounts that security personnel and a locksmith attended on 4 May 2017 to secure the property. The evidence, which was uncontested, was that Carty refused to give them possession and said they were not to enter. On 17 May, his advisers told Van Dessel’s firm that Carty was not in a position to comply and considered the order “all wrong”. The court found that the injunction had been properly served and that Carty repeatedly refused to comply.
Carty disputed the receiver’s appointment and the transfer of the loan and security. Those issues had been raised before Gilligan J, who had ruled on them when granting the interlocutory order. Allen J said the order did not finally decide those issues, which could be addressed at trial, but remained binding in the meantime. He also rejected Carty’s arguments that delayed delivery of the statement of claim excused compliance: it had been delivered in May 2018, and the injunction was not conditional on it.
Carty also relied on a later High Court decision involving a different case and similar mortgage wording. Allen J accepted the decisions reached different provisional conclusions, but said the later decision did not justify reopening the earlier order. He found no change in circumstances warranting variation or discharge.
The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Carty had been in breach since 4 May 2017 by obstructing the receiver’s possession and security work, interfering with the receiver’s functions, and entering or otherwise interfering with the lands. The judge said there was not enough evidence to find beyond reasonable doubt that Carty had collected rent or other money from an occupier. The order permitted Van Dessel to issue a committal order; the judgment did not itself state that Carty was arrested or imprisoned.