The High Court has restrained Everyday Finance DAC and receiver Ken Tyrrell from advertising for sale, taking possession of, entering an agreement to sell or selling four folios of land in Counties Kildare and Meath, pending the outcome of an action over whether bank charges secure the plaintiffs’ debts. The order was made on 15 January 2021 by Mr Justice Allen, on the plaintiffs’ undertaking as to damages.
Miceal and Cathy Sammon contend that charges they signed in 2000 and 2002 secured only the personal loans used to build their home and buy adjoining land, and not later guarantees for loans to companies in the Sammon Group. Those personal loans have been repaid. Everyday Finance, which received the charges from Allied Irish Banks (AIB) in 2018, says the charges cover all sums due and include the guarantee liabilities. The underlying question remains for trial.
The court found that the Sammons had established a fair question to be tried about the proper construction of the charges. It did not weigh the evidence or decide the parties’ ultimate rights. Justice Allen said the threshold for a fair question was low and the plaintiffs’ case was not bound to fail.
The judge considered the risk that a sale before trial could permanently deprive the plaintiffs of land they use in connection with their home and as a family hobby farm. He rejected the defendants’ description of the land as non-essential commercial assets. The defendants had not quantified the loss they might suffer if a sale were delayed, and the court found no evidential basis that the land would realise less after trial.
The judgment also noted uncertainty about the receiver’s role. The receiver had no power of sale under the appointment, and the court understood the threatened sale to be by Everyday, directly or through its agent. The way a sale might proceed was not fully argued, so the judge decided the motion on the basis that the defendants threatened and intended to sell before the action was heard.
The injunction preserves the position pending trial; it does not prevent the defendants from pursuing remedies through other lawful means. The court said the substantive dispute over the charges, and any later question about whether the defendants could obtain a court order for sale by another route, remained undecided. Justice Allen said the plaintiffs were successful on the motion and should receive its costs, subject to any written submissions within 14 days. He was also disposed to stay execution on the costs order pending the final determination of the action.