The High Court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing Allied Irish Banks plc, Everyday Finance DAC, Link ASI Ltd and two receivers from entering or interfering with occupants of two properties on Lower Drumcondra Road, Dublin 9, pending trial of John Creaby’s action. The order preserves the position for now; it does not decide whether an alleged agreement to settle his debts was made.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 11 May 2022. Creaby, then aged 84, accepted that he owed the first defendant slightly more than €4 million. He had consented to a €3.3 million judgment in its favour in February 2014, arising from a guarantee for a company operated by his sons and from his own borrowings. The bank transferred its interest in the judgment and loans to Everyday Finance in or about August 2018. Link ASI managed the two properties, and the fourth and fifth defendants were receivers appointed over them.
Creaby’s case was that he and his late wife reached an oral agreement with the bank in or about 2014, recorded in written Heads of Terms. He said five properties would be sold in a specified sequence, with the proceeds settling all outstanding liabilities. He argued that some properties had been sold and their proceeds paid to the bank, and that the two Drumcondra properties remained to be sold under the arrangement. The defendants disputed that a binding agreement had been concluded. They relied on documents describing the terms as non-binding, indicative and subject to contract, and said no formal contract followed.
The court found that Creaby had raised a fair question for trial, applying what it described as a low threshold. It noted the force of the defendants’ argument about the documents, but said there was an argument that an agreement had been reached during earlier oral negotiations. The judge expressly made no finding on whether Creaby’s account was correct.
In deciding whether to grant interim relief, the court considered Creaby’s advanced age and stress, the preservation of the status quo, evidence of rising property values, and his undertakings to pay damages if required and to retain rent from the properties pending trial. It was not satisfied that granting the injunction would prejudice the defendants. The court also noted that, although both sides accepted the properties would have to be sold at some point, they disagreed about whether the proceeds would clear the entire debt or merely reduce it.
The court granted the injunction in the terms sought in the motion. It directed that any request for voluntary discovery issue within three weeks. If the action was not listed for hearing by 1 May 2023, the defendants could re-enter the matter to seek to lift the injunction. The court urged the plaintiff to bring the action on for hearing without delay.