Judgment: 2026-05-13 · Court archive

High Court refuses Goldstein bid to halt sale of €120m property portfolio

High Court, Commercial Court · [2026] IEHC 299

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Goldstein Property ICAV (Plaintiff)
  • Ken Fennell
  • Brendan O’Reilly (Defendant)
What

High Court refuses Goldstein bid to halt sale of €120m property portfolio

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Shelbourne House
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court also found substantial delay. The receivers were appointed in November 2024, but Goldstein did not seek the injunction until March 2026, after four properties had already been sold.

The Commercial Court has refused Goldstein Property ICAV an injunction that would have stopped receivers selling 47 commercial properties, including Shelbourne House in Ballsbridge, while a dispute over the amount needed to redeem its mortgages continues.

Goldstein borrowed about €143 million from three RELM loan companies between 2019 and 2022. After the facilities expired without repayment in September 2024, RELM appointed Ken Fennell and Brendan O’Reilly as receivers in November that year. The properties were valued at about €120 million in June 2025, while RELM said approximately €146 million was owed by the time of the hearing.

Goldstein disputes that figure. Its expert calculated a redemption sum of approximately €124 million or €126 million. That calculation assumes Goldstein was not in default and the receivers were not validly appointed. RELM’s higher figure includes default interest, fees, receivership expenses and other charges.

Mr Justice Twomey said that meant the redemption dispute was inseparable from Goldstein’s earlier challenge to the receivers’ appointment. The court had already described that underlying challenge as “very weak”. That weakness weighed heavily against an injunction.

The court also found substantial delay. The receivers were appointed in November 2024, but Goldstein did not seek the injunction until March 2026, after four properties had already been sold.

A further factor was Goldstein’s February 2026 letter to Savills, the sales agent for Shelbourne House. The judge characterised it as an attempt to intimidate an unconnected third party by threatening litigation if it continued acting for the receivers. He said that conduct was lawful but did not assist Goldstein when seeking equitable relief.

The court also rejected mandatory injunctions requiring RELM to supply financial information immediately and cooperate with a proposed €120 million refinancing by Earlsfort Capital. Goldstein had not shown the strong case required for those orders.

The injunction application was refused, leaving the receivers free to continue sales, subject to any later orders.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review