The High Court set conditions for possible interlocutory injunctions in a dispute over a London investment property, but did not make them unconditional. Justice Robert Haughton adjourned the application so the plaintiff could consider whether he was able and willing to give further undertakings on oath.
The plaintiff seeks to prevent Promontoria (Aran) Ltd and receiver Tom O’Brien from acting in relation to Flat 902, Belvedere Heights, on Lisson Grove in Westminster. The company says it succeeded to Ulster Bank’s loans and charge over the property, and that O’Brien was appointed receiver in October 2016. The plaintiff disputes the company’s succession and the validity of the appointment.
The judge found the plaintiff had raised a fair question for trial concerning his account that the bank agreed in 2008 to release the property from its charge, subject to a satisfactory valuation of a company property. The plaintiff produced correspondence and a valuation supporting that account. Andrew Harris, an asset manager whose company provides loan administration and asset management services, said the bank had not accepted the valuation as satisfactory. The judge made no further assessment of the parties’ competing arguments about the charge or receiver appointment, leaving those issues for trial.
The judgment records the company’s claimed liabilities as more than €4 million across personal facilities and guarantees for Classic Furniture Ltd. The judge said the charge and borrowings were admitted, but did not treat a UK Land Registry form as proof that Promontoria was beneficially entitled to the charge, in the absence of evidence on English law. He did take the transfer and conveyancing documents into account for the interlocutory application.
Justice Haughton considered that refusing an injunction risked failing to preserve the plaintiff’s property rights, while the adequacy of his undertaking to pay damages was in doubt. He found the balance of convenience evenly balanced and said the court should seek to preserve the existing position: the property was owned and let by the plaintiff, who received rental income, alongside prima facie evidence of substantial debt.
The court’s stated intention was to grant injunctions in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the plaintiff’s motion if he gave five additional undertakings on oath. These included providing and updating letting details, holding net rent in his solicitor’s trust account, accounting to the defendants every three months, not disposing of the property without court leave except by short-term lease, and giving notice before changing solicitors. If he could not or would not give them, the judge said interlocutory relief would be refused. The judgment does not record whether the undertakings were later given or the injunctions ultimately made.