The High Court has granted limited interlocutory relief to Dermot and Mary Duffy in a dispute over charges and a receiver’s appointment concerning their interests in 2 Woodford Cottages, Palmerstown, County Dublin. The precise terms of the relief, any further orders and costs remained for the parties to address with the court.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2019, Ms Justice Pilkington said the evidence disclosed unresolved contradictions about mortgages registered against the property and the basis on which Tom Kavanagh had been appointed receiver over the Duffys’ interests. She found the couple had shown a fair or reasonable case to be tried under the interlocutory injunction test and that the balance of convenience favoured limited relief. She did not finally determine whether the charges were valid or what share of rental income the Duffys were entitled to receive.
The 2018 proceedings concerned Palmerstown. The Duffys held an undivided one-quarter interest each as tenants in common, alongside their daughter and son-in-law, Ursula and Harry Hilliard, who also held one-quarter each. The property was tenanted. The Duffys said they had contributed €157,500 towards its purchase, paid stamp duty and legal fees, and spent €30,000 on renovations. They maintained they had not borrowed money to buy it; the Hilliards were the borrowers.
The judgment records that the Duffys’ solicitor found a mortgage deed in their names had been registered against their interests, although Permanent TSB had told them in 2016 that they had no active mortgage with the bank. In 2017, Havbell DAC said it had no borrowings to the Duffys and held no personal information about them. The lender’s records and the circumstances of the registered charge were contested issues, not final findings about liability.
Havbell’s evidence was that the Duffys had signed a mortgage deed and a deed of confirmation, both witnessed by their solicitor, and that the charge was valid. The judge noted that the defendants had not explained why separate mortgages appeared to disclose loans of €250,000 each, whether €500,000 had been advanced, or why Kavanagh had been appointed receiver over the Duffys’ interests in 2017 if the Hilliards’ mortgage and the deed of confirmation were sufficient. She said the documentation and the receiver’s assertion that the Duffys owed money required clarification at a full hearing.
The Duffys sought to prevent steps affecting their interests while the case proceeded. They said rental income helped meet their living expenses. The court’s ruling was confined to interim protection; it did not resolve the underlying dispute. The judge said she would hear the parties further on the exact relief and any other orders, including costs.