The Court of Appeal has lifted an injunction requiring Thomas and Catherine Reidy to give up possession of their home in Adare, finding that their arguments about assurances and renovations raised an arguable defence for trial. It dismissed the receiver’s application for possession at the interlocutory stage; it did not decide the parties’ underlying rights at a full hearing.
The dispute concerns Apartment 2, Fishermans Wharf, Manor Court, Adare, County Limerick. AIB advanced loans totalling €2.345 million to Padraig and Janet Ryan between 2006 and 2010, secured in part by a charge over the apartment. The Ryans defaulted, and AIB appointed Stephen Tennant as receiver in April 2016.
The Reidys had agreed to buy the property from the Ryans for €100,000 in September 2015 and paid a €5,000 booking deposit. While title problems delayed the sale, they moved in under a one-year letting agreement at €100 a month. Mr Reidy said he contacted the receiver’s office after learning of the appointment and was told by a staff member that the sale would proceed. The receiver did not file a further affidavit disputing that account. The Reidys said they renovated the property in reliance on the assurance. The High Court found they spent about €20,000, a finding not challenged on appeal.
Everyday Finance DAC, to which the loans and receiver appointment were transferred in 2018, told the Reidys in March 2019 that the sale would not proceed. It later demanded possession. The receiver sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction. In 2021, the High Court granted it, with a six-month stay, concluding that the Reidys had no arguable defence. The Reidys appealed.
The Court of Appeal said a mandatory interlocutory injunction requires a particularly strong case and should not be used as a substitute for a trial. It considered that the Reidys had at least an arguable case in estoppel, including whether the assurance and their expenditure made it unfair to enforce the receiver’s position. It also found their delay argument arguable. The court did not resolve those issues, which it said were for trial.
The appeal court further concluded that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the couple, then in their 70s, to remain in their home while the dispute was tried, rather than requiring the financial institution to wait before enforcing its security. It allowed the appeal, dissolved the injunction and dismissed the receiver’s application. The court urged the parties to resolve the dispute, observing that the €20,000 at issue was small compared with the costs likely to arise from a full hearing and any further appeal.