The High Court dismissed Padraig Moroney’s proceedings challenging the registration of Bank of Scotland and Ennis Property DAC as owners of charges over lands in Co Clare. It also refused an interlocutory injunction sought by receiver Shane McCarthy to take possession of the lands from Mr Moroney. The court directed that Mr McCarthy’s application against Geraldine Moroney be given a new hearing date, after finding no evidence she had been told the date of the hearing before the court.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald delivered the judgment on 29 June 2018, following a hearing on 15 to 17 May. The proceedings concerned six folios in the Register. The charges had originally secured loans made by Bank of Scotland Ireland Ltd (BOSI) to Mr and Mrs Moroney. The judgment records that BOSI’s business transferred to Bank of Scotland following a cross-border merger effective at the end of 2010. Bank of Scotland assigned the loans and mortgages to Ennis Property in April 2015, and the charge transfers were registered.
Mr Moroney argued that the transfers and registration infringed his rights, including because he said the borrowers had not been given fair procedures and the new entities were unregulated in Ireland. He sought to have the charges removed and the register rectified. The judge held that the legal arguments had no prospect of success and dismissed Mr Moroney’s proceedings against all defendants as bound to fail. He also refused Mr Moroney’s request for an interlocutory order requiring the Property Registration Authority to remove the charges.
Separately, McCarthy sought interim relief to take possession as receiver. The judge found strong evidence that the loans were in default and that Ennis Property had grounds to demand repayment. But the mortgage deed provided for appointment of a “receiver and manager”, while McCarthy’s appointment deed described him only as a “receiver”. At this interlocutory stage, the judge was not satisfied that McCarthy had shown a sufficiently strong case that his appointment complied with the deed. He therefore dismissed the application against Mr Moroney, without deciding the final validity of the appointment or the underlying possession claim. He said McCarthy could still succeed at trial.
The court made no order granting possession. It made no decision on the substance of McCarthy’s application against Mrs Moroney; instead, that application was to be relisted and she was to be informed of the hearing date. The judge noted that the disputed amount of interest could be addressed later and that the receiver could recover only the true amount due. The remaining motions by Mr Moroney to add parties were left for later consideration, subject to submissions.