The Court of Appeal has dismissed Francis Harte's bid to prevent receivers appointed by Promontoria (Aran) Limited from selling commercial property in County Meath while his wider legal action continues.
Ms Justice Pilkington, giving judgment on July 7, 2026, upheld a 2023 High Court decision refusing an interlocutory injunction. The ruling means joint receivers Ken Fennell and Mark Degnan may exercise their power of sale pending determination of Harte's plenary proceedings.
The property is contained in Folio 11232, County Meath. Harte became its registered owner in 2001 and later secured borrowing from Ulster Bank against it. A 2010 facility continued a demand loan of €2.369 million. Following default, Ulster Bank demanded €2.564 million in December 2011 and subsequently obtained judgment for €1,801,491.82 in March 2015.
The relevant loans and security were transferred through a series of transactions to Promontoria, which appointed the receivers in July 2019.
Harte argued that several matters justified stopping a sale. These included a 25% beneficial interest in the property previously found in favour of his sister in family-law proceedings, an alleged defect in the transfer of the judgment and mortgage, and his claim that the receivers risked selling at an undervalue. He had relied on a valuation indicating €3.6 million and asserted that the property was being marketed for €1.1 million.
The Court of Appeal rejected each point. It held that Harte could not assert his sister's rights on her behalf and that the earlier family-law order expressly did not bind Ulster Bank. It also found that Promontoria's entitlement had already been recognised in earlier proceedings and that there was no evidence supporting an inference that the receivers intended to sell below the best reasonably obtainable price.
The court separately refused to allow a new argument concerning the dates of the loan-sale documentation because it had not been raised in the High Court and would unfairly disadvantage the respondents.
The appeal was dismissed. The court's provisional view was that Harte should pay the respondents' appeal costs.