The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Y.W. concerning the appointment of a receiver over properties in Dublin, finding that the lender remained entitled to the mortgages and that the receiver’s appointment deeds were validly executed.
The appeal followed a High Court judgment delivered on 27 April 2015. In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeal had granted Y.W. leave to appeal out of time on three grounds: whether she had standing to challenge the receiver’s appointment, the status of the Educational Building Society (EBS), and the validity of the appointment. The current judgment dealt with the latter two issues and did not decide the standing question because it was unnecessary to do so.
The court said the first defendant, identified as J.M., had taken no active part in the High Court proceedings. The case concerned loans taken out by J.M. in 2005 to buy eight Dublin properties, with a ninth property also charged. The court described seven of the eight as residential and one as commercial premises. EBS registered mortgages over the properties in 2008. After repayment was demanded and not made, the High Court granted EBS possession of the eight properties in October 2009.
EBS appointed a receiver by two deeds dated 26 May 2010. The receiver later brought proceedings seeking possession of two properties and orders restraining the defendants from holding themselves out as entitled to manage the other six or demand rent from their tenants. The High Court rejected Y.W.’s challenge to the mortgages and the receiver’s appointment.
On EBS’s status, the Court of Appeal accepted evidence that the building society converted into a company called EBS Ltd. in 2011 under the statutory conversion process. It held that the change in name and status did not create a different entity or transfer the mortgages. The court also said there was no evidence that the mortgages in this case had been transferred to EBS Mortgage Finance Ltd.
On the receiver’s appointment, the court said the original deeds showed that the society’s seal had been affixed. The mortgage terms expressly allowed appointment by deed under seal. It therefore held the receiver had been validly appointed under the relevant legislation. The court concluded that the permitted substantive grounds failed and dismissed the appeal.