The High Court has refused an application for an interim injunction to stop the sale of Penney’s Cottage, a property in County Kerry. Mr Justice Nolan said the applicant had not established a fair issue to be tried and had not shown that she, or the person acting in her name, had standing to bring the case.
The proceedings were brought in the name of Dora O’Callaghan, represented by her estranged husband, John O’Callaghan, who said he was acting under a power of attorney. The court heard that the property was registered to Sandra O’Callaghan, Dora’s daughter. The judge said it remained uncertain whether Dora had an interest in the property; that question would be for a full hearing if the case proceeded that far.
John O’Callaghan argued that First Active had ceased to exist before its mortgage was registered, so the mortgage and later transfer of the lender’s interest were invalid. He also raised issues about the loan offers, the receiver’s appointment and the property’s registration. The judge rejected these arguments for the purpose of the injunction application, finding that the Land Registry registration was conclusive and that First Active’s later non-existence did not invalidate it. He found the receiver had been validly appointed.
The judge also cited omissions from John O’Callaghan’s initial application, including an earlier, substantially identical injunction application brought in his own name that had been refused. The court had not been told of that earlier case when the present application was made. Mr Justice Nolan said an applicant seeking an injunction had a duty to disclose matters for and against the case, and found that the disclosure failures weighed against granting relief.
John O’Callaghan had also described the property as his family home. In court, he confirmed that he did not live there, though he said it had been his family home from 2000 to 2017. The judge rejected the family-home argument and said the alleged declaration supporting it was questionable. He found no evidence supporting the fraud allegations raised in the proceedings.
The court considered whether there was a fair issue to be tried and the balance of convenience. It found no fair issue, and said that even if there were one, the balance did not favour an injunction. The application was refused. The judgment addressed the interim injunction request; it did not determine whether Dora O’Callaghan had an interest in the property at a full hearing.