The High Court has refused an injunction sought by John Ryan to prevent the sale of an investment property at 4 Corr na Cille, Banagher, Co Offaly, while his substantive proceedings continue.
In a judgment delivered on 27 June 2025, Mr Justice Conor Dignam found there was a fair issue to be tried over whether the receiver had power under the mortgage to sell the property. He nevertheless concluded that the balance of justice was against granting an interlocutory injunction and refused the relief.
The application was made in proceedings issued in 2021 against Promontoria (Aran) Ireland Limited, Ulster Bank Ireland DAC, James A. Murphy and Damien Harper. Ryan’s motion had originally sought relief concerning several properties and included other requests. At the hearing, the relief pursued was confined to 4 Corr na Cille; two of the requested forms of relief were no longer pursued, and the main focus was on preventing the receiver from acting and stopping a sale.
The mortgage dates from 2004. Ulster Bank transferred the loan and mortgage to Promontoria in 2015, and a receiver was appointed in 2016, with that appointment novated to another receiver in 2020. Ryan challenges the transfer and appointments in the substantive proceedings. The judge stressed that disputed background matters were not findings in this application.
The defendants argued that Promontoria could sell as mortgagee in possession under statutory powers. The judge said the sale documents before the court instead described the receiver as selling in that capacity, and there was no evidence that Promontoria would sell as mortgagee in possession or was in possession of the property. The court therefore found a fair issue about the receiver’s power of sale. It did not decide the validity of the loan transfer or receiver appointments.
In weighing the application, the judge treated the property as part of a buy-to-let investment portfolio and said Ryan had not shown that damages would be inadequate compensation if the property were wrongfully sold. The court also considered the delay since the receiver’s appointment, but gave it limited weight because Ryan moved after the property was put up for sale.
The precise amount of the debt remained disputed and unclear. The judgment records a 2014 demand figure of €6,708,915.70, while noting that later property sales had reduced the accounts. The property was being offered for €87,000, and Ryan relied on a valuation of €160,000.
The judge concluded that these points did not outweigh the factors against an injunction, including the concern that Ryan might not be able to meet an award under his undertaking as to damages. The ruling concerns interim relief only; the substantive challenges remain for determination.