The Court of Appeal has dismissed Yeoksee Ooi’s appeal against the refusal of an injunction that would have restrained the Sheriff from executing a possession order for Dromin House, Co. Wicklow. The court upheld the High Court’s decision that the balance of justice weighed against interim relief. It did not determine Ooi’s constitutional challenge to the Family Home Protection Act 1976.
The dispute arises from a loan obtained by Brian McDonagh to buy Dromin House. The judgment says the loan was restructured in 2007 to more than €5 million and secured by a second mortgage. No repayments had been made since 2013. Promontoria Scariff DAC, which the judgment identifies as a predecessor’s successor, obtained a Circuit Court possession order in January 2023, with an 18-month stay. The High Court later dismissed Ooi’s appeal and affirmed that order.
Ooi, who is McDonagh’s partner, began separate proceedings challenging the constitutionality of section 2 of the 1976 Act shortly before the High Court hearing of her possession appeal. She sought an adjournment so that challenge could be heard first, but it was refused. In October 2024, after the Sheriff notified her that she had to leave the property, she obtained an interim restraint and applied for an interlocutory injunction. The High Court refused the injunction but also refused Promontoria’s application to strike out the constitutional proceedings.
The Court of Appeal said the refusal to strike out meant Ooi had crossed the threshold of showing a serious issue to be tried. But it agreed that other factors weighed against an injunction, including the delay in bringing the proceedings and seeking relief, the existing possession order, the unpaid secured debt and the time allowed by the Circuit Court to make alternative arrangements. It also agreed that the absence of an undertaking in damages weighed against relief, while disagreeing with the High Court’s reasoning on that issue: the judgment said Ooi had provided only a general assertion that she could not give an undertaking, without evidence of her means.
The appeal court said the timing of the proceedings and the delay in seeking an injunction showed an attempt to delay Promontoria’s exercise of its legal entitlements. It concluded that the injunction should be refused and dismissed the appeal. The court’s provisional view was that Promontoria was entitled to its appeal costs, subject to written submissions from Ooi within 14 days and a reply from Promontoria within a further 14 days. The judgment does not state the outcome of those costs submissions or of Ooi’s separate constitutional challenge.