The High Court has granted a receiver interlocutory injunctions concerning the Alexandra Place development in Dublin 3, restraining the defendants from interfering with his receivership functions, rent collection and possession of the properties. The order is interim: the court did not finally decide whether the receiver’s appointment was valid or resolve the defendants’ claims about the loans and their transfer.
The receiver, Stephen Tennant, was appointed on 31 March 2015 by Promontoria Eagle Ltd (PEL) over Alexandra Place and six other properties. The development includes apartments and commercial space. The judgment records a dispute about its exact make-up: the receiver described 57 apartments and one occupied commercial unit within the receivership, while Hugh McGinley said the development had 73 apartments, three commercial units and a crèche.
The loans had originated with Bank of Ireland and were later transferred to National Asset Loan Management (NALM), a NAMA subsidiary. PEL bought the company’s loans in 2014. After repayment demands in March 2015, PEL appointed Tennant as receiver. The court recorded that the company’s debt, the security and guarantees, the right to appoint a receiver, the non-payment after demand, and the formal validity of the appointment instruments were not in issue for this application.
The defendants argued that earlier dealings with the bank and NALM/NAMA created a binding “management work out agreement” that prevented enforcement. They also argued that they should have been heard before the loans were transferred to PEL, and disputed the validity of the repayment demand. The receiver opposed those arguments. The judge did not decide their ultimate merits, finding only that the defendants had not established a complete defence that would defeat the fair issue to be tried.
The court said the receiver had raised a fair, bona fide question for trial. It also found that the defendants had not shown they could compensate him in damages for losses if the injunctions were refused. In weighing convenience, the judge considered evidence about rent collection and alleged pressure on tenants, which the defendants denied, as well as the need for clarity and stability for tenants. The judge concluded that the balance favoured granting the injunctions.
The order restrains the defendants from interfering with the receivership or the receiver’s functions, interfering with rent received from tenants, entering or remaining on the properties without permission, or trespassing or otherwise interfering with his possession. It is an interlocutory order pending the underlying proceedings.