The High Court has refused Kieran McKenna’s application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent a receiver completing the sale of farmland in Co Monaghan. A sale contract with a third-party purchaser had already been signed before the application was made.
Mr Justice Cregan delivered the judgment on 9 October 2023. The ruling concerned only the application to restrain completion of the sale pending the determination of the proceedings; it did not decide the underlying action at trial.
Mr McKenna borrowed €220,000 from Irish Nationwide Building Society in 2004, secured by a mortgage over the farmland in 2005. The loan and mortgage were later transferred to IBRC, Shoreline Residential and Pepper Finance. The court said the loan had been in default since July 2015, with no principal or interest paid since then. The debt was approximately €276,550, with about €33 in interest accruing each day.
Shoreline appointed Ken Fennell as receiver in September 2018. The appointment was later novated to Pepper. After unsuccessful efforts to sell the land, the receiver entered into a contract with a third party on 28 July 2021 for €120,000. Mr McKenna’s solicitors learned of the contract in September 2021. He issued proceedings in November but did not seek an injunction until January 2022.
The plaintiff challenged the transfers of the loan and mortgage, notice of assignment, the receiver’s appointment and its later novation, and the handling of his equity of redemption. He also raised a constitutional challenge to section 12 of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013. The judge found that none of these arguments established a fair question to be tried for the purpose of the injunction application. He concluded that Pepper had established a valid chain of title and that a letter received by Mr McKenna in October 2020 gave written notice of the assignments. The court also considered the effect of an equitable assignment if statutory notice requirements were not met.
The judge found damages would be an adequate remedy if Mr McKenna succeeded at trial. He said the court had no evidence of fraud, an obvious undervalue or patent illegality that might support stopping completion of the existing contract. The court also weighed the effect an injunction could have on the receiver and purchaser.
The judge described the plaintiff’s evidence that the purchaser would not complete as weak hearsay. The receiver said no request to terminate the contract had been received and that the purchaser had paid a €12,000 deposit. The court also found the delay in seeking relief and the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages weighed against an injunction. It refused the application.