The High Court has refused Clare Gibb’s application for an interlocutory injunction that sought to stop receivers acting over two mortgaged properties in Clondalkin and Dublin 8. The court said the receivers could proceed to secure the properties and account for rents and outgoings in the usual way.
The application concerned 54 New Road, Clondalkin, and Unit 1 at 1-3 The Coombe. Promontoria (Aran) Limited (PAL) appointed Brendan Hanratty and Declan Taite as receivers on 15 February 2016, after demand letters were issued for repayment of loan facilities. The properties had been included in mortgages assigned to PAL from Ulster Bank Ireland Limited.
Gibb’s underlying proceedings against Ulster Bank, issued in 2012, allege that she was induced to enter into two interest-rate swap arrangements in 2008 and that the bank breached duties in their sale and management. Her 2016 claim against PAL disputes the assignment of the debt and argues that her claims against Ulster Bank affect the amount owed. These remain claims and submissions; the injunction hearing did not decide their merits.
The court recognised that there may be an issue to be tried about interest on the loan facility and the extent of the debt assigned to PAL. But it was not persuaded that Gibb was not liable for the principal. It also found clear written notification of the assignment, which was not disputed, and described her argument under section 28(6) of the Judicature Act 1877 as tenuous.
The judge said the properties were also subject to mortgages granted by Gibb’s estranged or former husband and sons, and that she could not rely on those parties’ rights. The court did not determine whether the first floor of the Clondalkin property was Gibb’s home, saying the evidence and dispute had not been adequately addressed for a decision even at this stage.
In refusing the broad restraint sought, the court considered damages an adequate remedy if Gibb succeeds in her claims. It also noted that she had offered no assurance about resuming loan repayments or meeting obligations concerning maintenance and income from the properties. The ruling was limited to the interlocutory injunction; it did not resolve the underlying claims or finally determine the validity of the receivers’ appointment.
Gibb was given liberty to deliver a statement of claim during the long vacation. The court said a timetable for further pleadings could be discussed.