The High Court declared that Kieran Wallace was lawfully appointed receiver over property that included the Saltee Hotel, after rejecting the defendants’ challenges to the legal charge and related guarantee. The court declined to award damages for alleged trespass because the plaintiff had not identified or quantified a specific element of damage.
The proceedings concerned loans made by Investec Bank Plc to Glynn Properties Ltd, the parent company of Saltee Hotel (Wexford) Ltd. The hotel was charged as security, and Saltee gave a guarantee and indemnity. After the Bank demanded repayment in April 2014 and the demand was not met, it appointed Wallace receiver by deed dated 9 June 2014.
The defendants raised seven remaining technical issues after conceding an eighth. They argued, among other things, that the charge was not properly stamped, that extensions of the loan released the company from its guarantee, that the guarantee exceeded Saltee’s corporate powers, and that the Bank was not the legal owner of the registered charge. The judge found the plaintiff was able to address the issues despite an argument that most had not been pleaded, and considered them individually.
The court found the original charge and debenture had been properly stamped. It rejected the argument that the guarantee covered only the initial 24-month facility. The facility extensions were signed by Robert Roche as a director of Glynn; the judge also noted his roles as director and company secretary of Saltee. She found that he had assented to the extensions and that the guarantee’s terms preserved Saltee’s liability despite amendments to the facility.
The judge also found that Saltee’s memorandum of association permitted it to give the guarantee, so it was within the company’s powers. She accepted evidence that Investec Bank’s change of name to Investec Bank Plc did not involve a transfer of the charge, and concluded the Bank was entitled to appoint the receiver.
On damages, the judgment records that Roche accepted through counsel in related proceedings that he had overreacted when the receiver initially sought to enter the premises. An interim injunction had restrained him from trespassing on the property or interfering with the receivership. The court heard evidence in those proceedings about claimed ownership of kitchen appliances and other hotel items, but made no damages award in this case.
The court granted the declaration sought. The order was to record the defendant’s undertaking, given through counsel, not to interfere with possession of the property or the receivership.