The High Court has refused Michael and Kathleen Leahy’s application for an interlocutory injunction to stop the transfer of their loans and mortgage security to Everyday Finance DAC. Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy ruled that the proposed transfer was not linked to any relief sought in their proceedings.
The couple’s case concerns two loans and a mortgage over 11 Kilkenny Street, Castlecomer, County Kilkenny. They had sought orders requiring Pentire Property Finance Limited and Pepper Finance Corporation to remove Tom Kavanagh as receiver and requiring him to leave the property. They did not seek relief challenging the loans or mortgage, or preventing their transfer.
The loans and mortgage had already been transferred twice. The judgment says they moved from Bank of Scotland to Pentire in April 2015, and from Pentire to Pepper on 7 August 2020. In March 2023, Kathleen Leahy received notice that Pepper had agreed to transfer them to Everyday Finance. The couple then sought to restrain that transfer.
Representing themselves, the couple argued that they had an arguable case concerning the transfer of loans to an unregulated entity, their treatment by the defendants, and whether they were entitled to protections under the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears. They also said they had paid more than €250,000 to avoid default, and described the distress and investment associated with the property. The defendants disputed their arguments, including whether the property was their principal private residence.
The defendants opposed the injunction on the basis that the proposed transfer would not affect the reliefs claimed in the case. They argued the couple were not required to join Everyday Finance and that the transfer could even improve their position if the possession counterclaim fell away.
Justice Mulcahy said the application had to be assessed on the pleadings as they stood. The couple had not sought relief addressing the loans, security or transfers, and none of their existing claims would be compromised by another transfer. He said the court would not assess the effect of the earlier Court of Appeal ruling on their remaining claims, but cautioned that the High Court was bound by that ruling.
The judge added that damages would be adequate if there were a claim concerning the transfer, and that the balance of convenience favoured refusal. He refused the application. The ruling decided the injunction application; it did not determine the couple’s remaining claims or the defendants’ counterclaim.