The High Court has granted Promontoria (Finn) Limited and receiver Damien Harper interlocutory relief concerning a property at 29 Tannery Road, Rathangan, but directed that it cannot be sold while the proceedings continue unless the parties agree.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2022, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts ordered vacant possession under the terms of the plaintiffs’ motion, with a stay against Neil Armstrong only for six months or until he secures alternative accommodation, whichever comes first. The court said any other occupants must be dealt with in accordance with applicable law, including residential tenancy laws.
The application was heard on 29 November 2022. Neither defendant appeared, and neither had filed an affidavit. The judge was satisfied they had been notified of the hearing. The case remains at an interlocutory stage; the underlying proceedings have not been decided at trial.
The loan was advanced by First Active plc in 2008 to Neil and Linda Armstrong to buy the property. The judgment records that they fell into arrears and that the balance was €324,789.34 as of 5 June 2020, with no further payments made. The lender’s interest in the mortgage security was later transferred to Promontoria, and receivers were appointed.
The plaintiffs said they were entitled to possession under the mortgage and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The judgment recounts the first defendant’s earlier objections to the loan transfers and his requests for evidence, as well as proposals concerning sale and relocation costs. The court said the defendants had not set out a detailed defence or objection in the proceedings.
Justice Roberts concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a strong case likely to succeed at trial, including on the loan default, registration of the charge and the receivers’ appointment and powers. In balancing the circumstances, she noted the first defendant may now live at the property and could face difficulty finding alternative accommodation. She also noted that it had once been a family home and that its status could be significant if raised at trial.
The court prohibited the defendants and anyone with notice of the order from collecting payments, including rent, relating to the property. Any rent being paid by occupants is to be paid to the second plaintiff, Harper, from the judgment date while payable. Provisions of the possession-related orders are stayed as set out in the judgment, except that one provision takes effect immediately. The court did not specify the text of each motion paragraph in its judgment. The plaintiffs did not pursue two other requested forms of relief.
Costs and directions toward a trial hearing were left for further consideration. The matter was listed for mention on 24 January at 10.45am; the judgment does not state a year for that date.