The High Court dismissed a plaintiff’s application for an interim order requiring a receiver to refurbish a property on Abbey Street in Cahir, County Tipperary. The application also sought to extinguish the receiver’s appointment, but the judge said that issue was not appropriate for decision on an interlocutory application and did not consider it further.
The plaintiff had brought the application on notice after the court refused to deal with an earlier request ex parte. The underlying proceedings began in May 2012, but no statement of claim had been delivered. The plaintiff had made earlier applications, which the court refused in July and October 2012; costs were awarded to the defendants on the latter application.
The plaintiff said the property had been leased to tenants when the receiver was appointed and alleged that the defendants failed to safeguard it, leaving it vandalised, dangerous, unlettable and unsaleable and depriving him of rent. He relied on an engineer’s report describing damage from break-ins and vandalism. The report said the property needed complete refurbishment to be habitable, but was limited to damage from unauthorised entry and did not assess the building’s structure. The judge also noted that the report did not refer to the plaintiff’s claim that the county council had identified the property as a danger to the public.
The receiver said he had been appointed to collect income, rents and profits, not to take possession of the property. He said the property was already uninhabitable and had no rent roll, and that he had resigned in April 2012. The affidavits conflicted on whether the property was tenanted when the receivership began and whether it was already derelict. The court did not resolve those disputes.
The judge held that the plaintiff had not shown a strong case likely to succeed at trial, the higher threshold required for an interlocutory mandatory injunction. She did not decide whether the receiver owed the plaintiff or the co-owner a duty of care, or the scope of any such duty, saying the issue had not been adequately argued. She also found that damages could compensate for the claimed loss of rent and that the plaintiff had offered no undertaking to compensate the defendants if the injunction later proved unjustified. The balance of convenience favoured refusing relief.
The order dismissed the application. It did not determine the underlying proceedings or the validity of the receiver’s appointment.