The High Court has made final orders in favour of a receiver appointed over eight properties, dismissing the counterclaims of a former domestic partner of the borrower and granting the receiver’s requested orders against both defendants.
The proceedings were brought by Paul McCann, whom EBS Limited purported to appoint as receiver in May 2010. The lender had advanced €8.318 million to the first defendant in 2005 to refinance eight residential investment properties. After the borrower defaulted, the High Court made an order for possession in 2009. EBS did not take possession and instead appointed a receiver.
The receiver sought possession of two properties, orders preventing the defendants from interfering with the receivership or dealing with the properties, and an account of rents collected. He also sought orders relating to the other six properties. The court noted that the claims against the third defendant were no longer pursued. The receiver sought final orders because he wished to put the first and second premises on the market.
The second defendant, who represented herself, argued that defects in the loan and mortgage documents invalidated the receiver’s appointment. She also claimed an interest in the properties arising from family law settlement terms and sought to have the receiver removed and to prevent EBS appointing another receiver.
The judge found that the proven Circuit Court settlement and order did not transfer to the second defendant an interest in the eight properties. The court also found that the EBS mortgages had priority over any claimed interest and that the second defendant had no proprietary right or right to possession in the properties. Her challenges to the mortgage documents were rejected. The court said the borrower was bound by the earlier possession determination and that the second defendant could not contest his contractual rights through him.
The judge treated the hearing as a final hearing, noting that the second defendant consented to that course and waived any entitlement to seek a statement of claim. The first defendant did not enter an appearance, but had sent emails stating that he did not wish to participate. The court decided it was just and equitable to make final orders against him as well.
The court granted the final orders sought by the receiver against the first and second defendants and dismissed the second defendant’s counterclaims. The judgment does not specify the individual terms of the final orders beyond stating that they were made as sought.