The High Court has refused Declan Kehoe’s application for an interlocutory injunction to stop the sale of two properties, finding that his delay, earlier unprosecuted proceedings and misleading statements about a Kerry property weighed against equitable relief.
Mr Justice Nolan said on 20 May 2025 that Kehoe had not come to court with clean hands. In affidavits, Kehoe described the Kerry property as a family residence that had never been rented. The court considered a lease showing it was let from March 2009 to November 2015, and a 2015 letter in which Kehoe told tenants to pay rent to him and his wife rather than the receiver. The judge said the affidavits were misleading at best and, at worst, untrue.
The judge also found the new proceedings were an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. Kehoe had previously brought proceedings in 2016 challenging the receiver’s appointment, which were discontinued and struck out with costs against him. A later set, issued in 2018, sought similar relief; it was dismissed for delay after a lis pendens was registered against the Kerry property. The Court of Appeal had described Kehoe’s conduct in those proceedings as placing him in a “particularly unmeritorious position”.
The judge rejected Kehoe’s argument that the disputes arose mainly from events in 2022 and 2023. He said the issues went back to the transfer of loans and security from Ulster Bank in 2015 and the receiver’s appointment that year. The court found gross and unexplained delay, noting that Kehoe had sought similar relief years earlier but did not pursue those cases to a conclusion.
Kehoe argued that a court order for possession was required before the Kerry property could be sold. The judgment said the draft sale contract provided for the property to be sold subject to occupancy, without vacant possession. The court concluded that the mortgagee did not need to apply for possession before exercising its power of sale in those circumstances.
The judge said there might be a stateable issue for trial about whether a 2011 facility letter included the Kerry property. But even on that issue, he found damages were an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience did not support an injunction, given the receiver’s long-running appointment and the sale of other properties.
The court refused the injunction. Costs were not finally determined: the judge gave a provisional view that the defendants were entitled to costs and listed the matter for submissions on the final order and costs on 4 June 2025.