The High Court has restrained Pat and Joan O’Connor from interfering with joint receivers at The Laurels, a property at 9 Dalkey Avenue, pending the determination of proceedings brought by the receivers. The court granted three interlocutory injunctions but did not grant the separate interim possession order also sought in the motion.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the ruling on 11 September 2013. The plaintiffs, Liam Dowdall and Sean McNamara, said they had been appointed receivers by Ulster Bank over The Laurels, one of two houses built on the Dalkey site by the defendants. The court was told that no order was being sought in relation to the O’Connors’ adjacent home, Pinehaven, or the Craughwell property.
The receivers sought orders preventing the defendants and people acting with them from obstructing the receivership, entering or interfering with The Laurels without consent, and harassing or intimidating occupants. They also sought interim possession. Their application followed a bank demand in November 2012 for €2,075,221.27 in loan arrears and a plenary summons issued in July 2013.
In affidavits, the receivers alleged that Joan O’Connor and others took control of The Laurels as its tenants were leaving in July 2013, obstructed security staff, changed locks and blocked the entrance. The tenants, Patrick and Phyllis Glavin, told the receivers they had found alternative accommodation. The court recorded that they cooperated with the receivers and described their experience at the property as “horrendous and frightening”. The allegations were disputed. The defendants’ main argument was that the receivers had not been lawfully appointed; the judge noted that their affidavits did not address the factual allegations in detail.
The judge rejected the defendants’ challenges to the demand notice, the deed appointing the receivers, the receiver appointment power in the mortgage and the mortgage’s execution. He found the demand had been sent to the address stated in the loan agreement and that the appointment deed was properly executed by an individual acting under a power of attorney. He concluded that the receivers had established a fair issue to be tried concerning their right to enter and take possession of the property and receive its rents pending the full hearing.
Applying the interlocutory injunction test in Campus Oil, the judge found damages would not adequately remedy the receivers’ potential losses and that the balance of convenience favoured relief. He granted the injunctions in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the motion. The judgment does not grant the requested interim possession order in paragraph 4; the underlying proceedings remained to be determined.