The High Court granted Seaconview DAC summary judgment against Chevas Securities Limited for €9,795,180.16 plus continuing interest, and granted an interlocutory injunction protecting a receiver’s access to two apartment blocks in Kimmage, Dublin. The court said it would hear from counsel on the precise form of the orders.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Twomey on 11 July 2018, concerned loans originally made by Ulster Bank Ireland Limited to Chevas and later transferred to Seaconview. The debt was secured over properties including 28 apartments in the Royston Village development. Anne O’Dwyer had been appointed receiver over secured assets on 21 December 2017.
Chevas did not dispute borrowing the money or owing the outstanding sums. It argued that an agreement around May 2016 to pay €30,000 monthly had changed the loans from repayable on demand to term lending. Seaconview disputed that account, saying the agreed monthly payment was €45,000. The judge found Chevas had not provided a credible defence: the facility letter described the lending as repayable on demand, and the company’s accounts and a 2017 email were inconsistent with the claimed change. The court therefore granted summary judgment.
Chevas also claimed it could counterclaim for loss of title deeds, alleging the loss had prevented refinancing. Seaconview said it had no evidence the deeds had ever come into its possession. The judge said the question of whether the deeds were lost could not be determined at this interlocutory hearing. But he found no affidavit evidence supporting the alleged refinancing loss and concluded the claim did not justify staying the judgment.
The injunction dispute concerned access to the apartment blocks’ common areas. Seaconview did not hold security over those areas. New Vision Investments Property Management Limited, a company controlled by James (also known as Seamus) Fagan, acquired rights over them in September 2017 and licensed those rights to Chevas. The defendants argued the receiver could not use the common areas to reach the apartments.
The judge held that a right of way of necessity for Seaconview was arguable, and that the receiver should not be prevented from accessing the blocks pending a full hearing. He granted an interlocutory injunction prohibiting interference with the receiver’s access and unlawful approaches to tenants concerning payment of rent to the receiver. The full hearing was to determine the underlying access dispute. The judgment records evidence that the defendants had not denied that tenants were told not to pay the receiver, that threats of eviction were made, or that the receiver’s agents were prevented from entering the apartments.