The High Court has refused Yeoksee Ooi’s application to prevent her and her family being evicted from Dromin House in Delgany, County Wicklow, while allowing most of her case against Promontoria to continue.
In a judgment delivered on 19 November 2024, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill refused an interlocutory injunction that would have stopped enforcement of a possession order. She also refused Promontoria’s application to strike out the proceedings against it, except for Ooi’s misrepresentation claim and the parts of her breach-of-duty claim that do not concern the Family Home Protection Act 1976. Ooi was directed to file an amended statement of claim.
The judge did not decide whether section 2 of the 1976 Act is unconstitutional. Ireland and the Attorney General, the defendants responsible for defending that challenge, did not participate in the two applications. The constitutional claim against them remains unresolved.
Dromin House was bought in 2005 by Brian McDonagh in his sole name, with a €3 million loan secured on the property. A restructured loan in 2007 was secured by a second mortgage. The judgment records that Ooi moved into the house in 2006, and that she and McDonagh have three children who live there. Courts had previously found the property was not a “family home” under the Act. Ooi had no established legal title or interest in it.
Promontoria obtained a possession order in January 2023 after loan repayments stopped in 2013. The order included an 18-month stay, which expired in September 2024. An execution order followed, and the occupiers were required to leave by 22 October 2024. An interim order temporarily halted enforcement while the High Court considered Ooi’s application. Promontoria had also undertaken not to enforce the possession order until 20 November 2024.
Justice Cahill said Promontoria had not shown that Ooi’s claims were bound to fail or were an abuse of process. She found it was too early to rule out remedies against the lender if the constitutional challenge ultimately succeeded, and said the complex question of the effect of any such ruling on earlier proceedings was unsuitable for summary determination. She struck out the misrepresentation claim as pleaded, finding no reasonable prospect of success, and limited the surviving breach-of-duty claim to issues concerning the Act.
The injunction was refused after the judge weighed Ooi’s delay in applying, the outstanding debt and the existing possession order. The judgment put the outstanding loan at more than €5.7 million and said no payments had been made since 2013. The judge found Ooi’s delay in seeking an injunction excessive and unexplained, and said it had prejudiced Promontoria. She also considered the possession order presumptively valid and binding at this stage. The court made no final decision on the constitutional challenge or the ultimate remedies available in the case.
The judge’s provisional view was that there should be no order as to costs, with further submissions scheduled for 20 November.