The High Court dismissed John and Eithne Coughlan’s application for an interlocutory injunction aimed at restraining two receivers from acting in relation to a commercial property in Newbridge, Co Kildare. The court found that the plaintiffs had not met the threshold of showing a fair issue to be tried. It invited further submissions arising from its decision.
The Coughlans are the registered owners of the former fire station on Main Street, which they bought in the 1990s, partly restored and converted into rental units. The first named plaintiff practised as a solicitor from the property for several years. The judgment says rent is collected from tenants twice a year, in January and July.
The plaintiffs borrowed from AIB Mortgage Bank and Allied Irish Banks PLC under a mortgage deed dated 13 June 2008. The judgment does not state the original loan amount. The loan and associated rights were transferred to Everyday Finance DAC by deed dated 14 June 2019. Everyday appointed the defendants as receivers on 30 June 2020. The judgment records that an application to register Everyday as owner of the mortgage was lodged on 20 August 2019 and completed on 3 December 2021.
The plaintiffs argued that Everyday lacked authority to appoint receivers while its registration was pending and the original charges remained on the property register. They relied on provisions of land registration law and earlier decisions, including Harrington v Gulland Property Finance Limited. The defendants argued that the receivers’ appointment power was contractual, and that registration, once completed, took effect from the date the application was made.
The court accepted that the receiver appointment power was contractual and said registration is deemed effective from the application date. It did not regard Harrington as authoritative on a distinction between receivers appointed under transferred and original mortgages, noting that no registration application had been lodged in that case. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument based on section 90, which it said had been replaced by section 63 of the Registration of Deeds and Title Act 2006 and did not apply to charges registered or deemed registered.
The court concluded that Everyday had acquired the mortgagee’s enforcement rights before the receivers were appointed, making the challenge to their appointment moot. The order dismissed the injunction application; the judgment does not determine any further relief arising from the invited submissions.