The High Court granted receiver John Coulston an interlocutory injunction for possession of five commercial properties in County Kerry, after rejecting the owners’ arguments against the order. The decision was made pending trial; the judgment did not determine final possession or other final orders.
The properties are in Killorglin, Kilgobnet, Ballymacprior and Cappaghaneen. They include a small housing development and agricultural land, some of which the Doyles use for farming. The court noted that the Doyles did not claim any property was a family home.
The judgment records that €1,924,850 was secured on the properties. The receiver submitted, without dispute from the Doyles, that no loan repayments had been made since 2018, the properties were valued at €1.15 million and their sale was expected to leave a shortfall of about €750,000.
The Doyles did not dispute the receiver’s appointment or his powers, but raised three grounds against the injunction. The court rejected their argument that Everyday Finance DAC had to join the proceedings because it was not in contractual privity with them: it found the receiver had an enforceable legal right to seek possession. It also rejected their complaint that Everyday had acted in bad faith by refusing a proposed settlement involving a payment from a relative and proceeds from the sale of other commercial property over 24 months. The court said a creditor was not obliged to settle a lawfully incurred debt for less than the amount owed.
The central argument was that the receiver’s undertaking to pay damages if the injunction proved unwarranted at trial would be meaningless. The Doyles said mortgage terms made the receiver their agent, leaving them liable to indemnify him for any damages paid to them. The court held that receiver-mortgagor agency is a special, tripartite arrangement involving the receiver, borrower and appointing creditor. It ruled that the undertaking, given by the receiver while acting for the creditor to obtain possession against the Doyles’ wishes, did not make the Doyles liable to reimburse him. They would not have to indemnify the receiver if they later relied on the undertaking.
The court found a strong case for the mandatory interim order because the appointment and powers were not disputed. It also concluded that damages could adequately compensate the Doyles for loss of possession if they ultimately succeeded at trial, while damages would not be an adequate and effective remedy for the receiver if possession were withheld now but granted at trial. These conclusions supported the balance of justice favouring the injunction.
The judge invited the parties to discuss outstanding matters. If further court orders were needed, the case was to be listed for mention one week after judgment at 10.45am.