The High Court refused an application by Carmel McLoughlin and her son to restrain receivers appointed by ACC Loan Management Limited, and granted injunctions sought by the receivers concerning two Dublin properties.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 2 March 2016, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor considered applications in two sets of proceedings involving 56 Mary Street and 32-36 Wolfe Tone Street, Dublin. The court identified the receivers’ authority, the effect of ACC’s name change, earlier disputes about loans and charges, and a challenge to a 2010 settlement among the issues raised.
Mrs McLoughlin argued that ACC had failed to honour representations about converting loans to a 20-year facility. She also said she had been unaware of the settlement signed by her then solicitor in May 2010, and alleged breaches of duty by ACC. Her son, Jamie McLoughlin, made a late allegation that the solicitor lacked authority to sign the settlement.
The judge said the alleged breaches and failure to honour commitments had already been raised in proceedings begun in 2001 and compromised by the 2010 settlement. Mrs McLoughlin could not relitigate those issues, he ruled. He found she had not established a serious issue to be tried over the solicitor’s authority, noting the delay and that no action had been brought to set aside the settlement. The court also said damages would be an adequate remedy if such an issue arose.
On the receivers’ appointment, the judgment referred to a 2015 High Court decision concerning ACC receiver appointments and said any possible omission in this case had been remedied by an ACC board resolution of 19 August 2015 ratifying the appointments. The judge found no issue requiring determination at a later stage. He also rejected the argument that ACC’s change of name affected the charges.
The court concluded there was no serious issue to be tried in Mrs McLoughlin’s claim or defence to the receivers’ possession claim. It said the non-monetary prejudice advanced in support of her injunction application concerned third parties who had not participated. The judgment noted that Anton Petrosyan had been served with documents but had not supported her position about the effect on occupiers.
The judge also cited fire-safety concerns relating to people accessing what appeared to be residential premises on the first floor. He granted the injunctions sought by the receivers to secure compliance with recommendations that might emerge from a fire officer’s letter. The receivers had given an undertaking as to damages. Mrs McLoughlin’s claim for damages remained open, though the court urged caution in pursuing it.