The High Court refused a woman’s application for interlocutory injunctions requiring a receiver to return possession of an apartment in Shankill and restraining him from trespassing there. The orders were sought pending a full trial; the court did not determine the underlying claims at this stage.
The plaintiff said she lived in the apartment under a written lease dated 24 September 2008 and paid €600 monthly rent. The defendant, a receiver appointed over the property, changed its locks after she left on 14 September 2013. When she returned in the early hours of the following day, she could not get in and was given two nights’ hotel accommodation.
The plaintiff sought final injunctions and damages in the plenary proceedings, alleging trespass and breach of her constitutional rights. The judge accepted that she had raised a fair question for trial about her occupation of the apartment and the alleged exclusion. He made no determination on the defendant’s asserted title or authority to take possession.
The judge refused the interlocutory orders after finding that the plaintiff had not disclosed material information in seeking urgent relief. The court found that she had deliberately misled it about how she re-entered the apartment and why she was arrested. The defendant’s unchallenged evidence was that she climbed to a third-floor balcony, broke a window, barricaded the front door and was found holding a machete-style knife. The court also identified a culpable failure to disclose earlier correspondence challenging her claimed right to occupy, and to provide meaningful information about her income or means.
The court separately considered whether the injunctions were justified under the usual test for interlocutory relief. It found no fair question, on the evidence then before it, that the receiver’s charge was subject to the plaintiff’s tenancy. It also found insufficient evidence that damages could not compensate her if she ultimately succeeded, and said her undertaking to compensate the defendant if she lost could not be assessed without evidence of her means. The balance of convenience favoured the defendant.
The judgment concerns only the interim application. It did not decide the final claims or determine whether the plaintiff had a valid tenancy or whether the receiver’s actions were lawful. The injunctions were refused.