The High Court has refused Francis Harte’s application to stop the sale of a mortgaged property in County Meath, finding that he had not raised a serious issue to be tried and that damages would be an adequate remedy.
Mr Justice Cregan delivered the ruling on 19 October 2023. The application concerned land at Balreask, Trim Road, Navan, which secured a €2.369 million loan from Ulster Bank. After Mr Harte defaulted, the bank obtained judgment in 2013. It transferred the loan and mortgage to Promontoria in 2015, and Promontoria appointed Ken Fennell and Mark Degnan as joint receivers over the property in 2019.
The receivers were marketing the land at a guide price of €1.1 million. Mr Harte argued that this was a significant undervalue. He relied on valuations he said placed the property between €2.35 million and €3.91 million, and another of €2.4 million to €2.6 million. The receivers relied on estate-agent valuations of €1.1 million and between €900,000 and €1.2 million. The judge held that the receivers could obtain their own expert valuations and act on that advice. He found no serious issue to be tried that they intended to sell below value.
Mr Harte also argued that his sister, Geraldine Quail, had a 25% beneficial interest, which he said undermined the receivers’ ability to sell the whole property. The judge found that Mr Harte had not established a serious issue on that point. He also rejected his challenges to the receivers’ appointment and to the transfer of the loan, mortgage and judgment debt. The court concluded that the judgment debt could be assigned and had been transferred to Promontoria. It noted that Promontoria was enforcing the mortgage, rather than proceeding on foot of the judgment.
In refusing the injunction, the judge said damages were an adequate remedy in the commercial dispute and that the balance of justice favoured refusal. He also found Mr Harte’s undertaking to compensate the defendants for losses caused by an injunction to be without substance, given the unsatisfied judgment debt and uncertainty about the property’s eventual sale price.
The ruling decided only the application for an injunction. The court refused to restrain the proposed sale; it did not determine the final outcome of the underlying action.