The High Court has refused receivers’ application for an interlocutory injunction that would have required John McCarthy and Wendy McCarthy to leave 22 Lansdowne Road, Dublin 4, and allow the receivers access. The court said the receivers had made a strong case for possession, but their delay meant the injunction was not justified. The underlying action remains unresolved.
Mr Justice Quinn’s ruling concerns interim relief only. It does not determine the final claim for possession or prevent the defendants from advancing their tenancy arguments at trial. The court directed that it would hear the parties on steps needed to progress the action.
The plaintiffs, Shane McCarthy and Kieran Wallace, were appointed joint receivers in August 2014 over properties mortgaged by Emerald Properties (Irl) Limited. The defendants, who were Emerald’s directors, lived at No. 22. They said they occupied the house under a tenancy that had not been validly terminated. The receivers sought possession and orders restricting interference with their functions, including an order requiring the defendants to vacate and permit access.
The defendants said Emerald charged them rent of €3,000 a month, which they maintained was offset against an unsecured loan owed to the first defendant. They relied on invoices and communications showing that the bank and receivers knew they occupied the property and knew how they accounted for rent. The receivers argued that the mortgage required the bank’s prior written consent for a tenancy, and that no consent had been given.
On the evidence before him, Justice Quinn found no written tenancy, no consent to its creation, and no evidence of express consent or of representations relied on by the defendants to their detriment. He held that the receivers had established a strong case that they were entitled to possession. But that did not settle whether interim relief should be granted: the court also had to weigh matters including delay and the balance of convenience.
The receivers were appointed in 2014 but first demanded vacant possession in May 2018. They issued the possession proceedings in May 2019 and applied for the injunction in July 2019; the application was heard in January 2021. The judge noted long gaps in the disclosed chronology and said no sudden event affecting management of the property had been shown to create urgency. The receivers’ wish to preserve the option of selling it, and the breakdown of negotiations, did not explain the delay sufficiently for the urgent mandatory order sought.
The court therefore dismissed the application. It did not dismiss the possession action, which is to be progressed to trial.