The Court of Appeal has dismissed Peter and Joan McCann’s appeal against an interlocutory order requiring them to hand over land behind Kilmurray House, Rathmichael, to receiver Myles Kirby. The order remains in force pending trial; the appeal judgment did not determine the defendants’ wider claims about the lenders’ conduct or the relationship between two loan facilities.
The dispute concerns land at the rear of Kilmurray House, which the judgment calls “the Property”. The McCanns own the lands and live at Kilmurray House. In June 2018, lenders Emerald Sky DAC and Lotus Decalia DAC provided a €730,000 facility to Grenwich Securities Limited. The stated purpose was for Grenwich to lend that sum to the McCanns so they could discharge a judgment mortgage over the Kilmurray lands. The McCanns guaranteed the loan and granted security over the Property.
A separate €300,000 facility was agreed in June 2019 to fund development at Lee Road in Cork. The lenders demanded repayment of the facilities in November 2020 and appointed Kirby as receiver over the Property on 6 November. Kirby later sought possession, saying the security entitled him to take control of the land.
The McCanns argued in the High Court that the 2018 security was linked to the 2019 facility and that the lenders’ failure to advance the full €300,000 undermined their right to enforce it. They also alleged regulatory non-compliance. The High Court concluded that the receiver had shown a strong case for mandatory interim relief: the written 2018 agreement did not make that facility conditional on the later one, and the defendants’ evidence on regulatory issues was insufficient at that stage. It ordered the McCanns to deliver up possession and access devices, prohibited interference with the land and its sale, and required 28 days’ notice before the receiver entered binding sale arrangements.
On appeal, the court declined to admit new arguments and material, including a claimed earlier agreement for €600,000 in development finance. Those matters had not been put before the High Court on affidavit, and the defendants gave no persuasive explanation for the delay. The judgment says they may pursue their pleaded new arguments at trial.
The appeal court found no basis to overturn the interim order. It said any dispute about interest or the amount due under the 2019 facility did not determine the validity of the receiver’s appointment under the 2018 arrangements. It dismissed the appeal and proposed awarding the receiver his costs, subject to any party seeking a different order within 21 days of receiving the electronic judgment.