The High Court refused Raymond Hogan’s applications for interlocutory relief concerning two properties in Thurles, County Tipperary, and granted receiver Tom Kavanagh’s application for relief in separate proceedings over one of them.
In a judgment delivered on 10 November 2017, Ms Justice Stewart considered two sets of proceedings. Hogan sought orders to prevent the defendants from trespassing on or taking unlawful possession of both properties. Kavanagh, appointed receiver over the second property, sought relief to carry out the receivership. Hogan resides with his family at the first property, in Athnid More. Walsh occupies the second under a tenancy agreement with Hogan.
The court found that Hogan had not established a fair bona fide question to be tried on the main issues he raised about the mortgage transfer, the receiver’s appointment, his claimed status as a consumer, an alleged arrears arrangement, or Walsh’s tenancy. The judge concluded that the loan related to a residential investment property and that the evidence did not support an agreement by a mortgagee to accept rent as full repayment. She also found no evidence that Shoreline consented to the tenancy created in April 2015.
The judgment records sharply disputed accounts of an incident involving Hogan’s family and a KTech Security representative at the first property. The judge described it as a single, disputed incident that was unlikely to recur and refused the requested relief concerning that property. She also cited Hogan’s failure to give a proper undertaking as to damages on affidavit as an independent reason to refuse his applications.
In Kavanagh’s proceedings, the court found that Shoreline had validly received the mortgagee’s interest, that Kavanagh had been duly appointed receiver after Hogan failed to repay following a demand, and that interference had hindered the receivership. It found the case for interim relief against Hogan and Walsh sufficiently strong. The judge concluded that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the receiver, while losses to Hogan and Walsh could be measured financially. She accepted Kavanagh’s undertaking as to damages and said the orderly administration of the receivership was the appropriate status quo.
The court’s decision was interlocutory: it refused Hogan’s requested interim relief in the first proceedings and granted Kavanagh’s requested interim relief in the second. The judgment does not determine the full proceedings at a final hearing.