The Court of Appeal has dismissed Paul Collins’s appeal against an interlocutory injunction concerning Blackhall House Stud in Bannow, Co Wexford. The order restrains him from entering or otherwise interfering with the property while receiver Neil Hughes seeks possession so it can be sold and the proceeds used to reduce the mortgagors’ debt.
The appeal concerned an order made by the High Court on 1 December 2015. Hughes had been appointed receiver over property owned by Joan Cummins-Moore and Francis Moore, who had mortgaged the premises to the bank. Collins entered the property under a two-year letting agreement made in October 2011 and paid €10,000 rent in advance. The receiver later served a notice of termination and brought proceedings in June 2015.
Collins argued that the notice was invalid or not properly served, that the dispute belonged before the Residential Tenancies Board, and that earlier High Court proceedings and alleged harassment by the Moores should prevent the receiver obtaining equitable relief. He also disputed that the receiver had shown the strong case required for this type of injunction. The respondents maintained that the notice was valid, the Board could not hear the dispute, and the receiver was entitled to recover the property for sale.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court’s findings on notice and service were “for the purpose of the injunction application” and could not be overturned. The notice had been sent by ordinary and registered post, left at the property, and emailed to an address Collins had previously used. The court also found that the dispute had not been validly referred to the Board within the applicable time limit. It said a prior order made in Collins’s favour had since been set aside as irregularly obtained and was no longer effective.
The court rejected the argument that the receiver’s pursuit of legal rights amounted to conduct that should disqualify him from relief. It agreed with the High Court that the receiver had met the required threshold for a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The appeal was dismissed.
The ruling addressed the interim injunction application; it did not determine the final outcome of the underlying claim for possession.