The High Court has granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Jerry Beades from interfering with receivers appointed over three groups of properties in Finglas, entering them without the receivers’ consent, or harassing or intimidating their occupants.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the ruling on 30 September 2013, pending determination of the substantive proceedings. The receivers, Declan Taite and Patrick Brennan, sought orders to protect their work managing properties charged to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited. They did not pursue an order for possession at this stage.
The properties include homes at Clancy Court, Clancy Road and McKee Road. The receivers said Beades obstructed their efforts to take control and collect rents. Their evidence included reports from a security company about incidents at 3 Clancy Court, including Beades changing locks in July 2013. Beades accepted that he was there and changing the locks, but said he was entitled to do so. He disputed the security company’s account of what happened.
The judge admitted the security reports and photographs for the interlocutory hearing, while noting they were hearsay and required careful consideration. He found that Beades’ admitted actions supported the receivers’ claim of deliberate obstruction. The judge gave substantially less weight to a tenant’s note alleging intimidation because the circumstances had not been investigated in sufficient detail. He also said there was no evidence Beades had tried to stop occupants of 116A McKee Road and 2 and 4 Clancy Court from paying rent to the receivers.
Beades challenged the validity of the mortgages and the receivers’ appointment. The judge rejected those arguments for the purpose of the application, finding a strong evidential basis that the receivers had been lawfully appointed. He was satisfied that the bank had made a lawful demand for repayment, which Beades had not met, and that the receivers were entitled to enter the properties and receive rents and profits pending the substantive proceedings.
Applying the interlocutory injunction test, the judge found a fair issue to be tried, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured relief. The injunction restrains interference with the receivers’ work, entry onto or interference with the premises without their express consent, and harassment or intimidation of occupants. The ruling is interlocutory; it does not determine the final outcome of the proceedings.