The Court of Appeal has refused Paul Coates’s appeal against High Court injunctions requiring him to leave a property in Saggart and remove his possessions, affirming the orders made at the interlocutory stage. The appeal concerned whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the reliefs or whether the proceedings had to be brought in the Circuit Court under section 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013.
The proceedings were brought by receivers Luke Charleton and Andrew Dolliver, appointed over the property by Promontoria (Aran) Limited. Coates had borrowed €1 million from Ulster Bank in 2005 for a personal investment in a capital guarantee bond and secured the loan against the Saggart property. The loan term expired in 2012. The judgment records that the outstanding amount on that facility was €1,011,957.79 in March 2013 and €1,010,047.85 in March 2019; the court also referred to minimal repayments.
The receivers’ claim alleged that Coates was withholding possession and interfering with their ability to exercise their powers. They sought injunctions requiring him to vacate, remove his belongings and refrain from entering or interfering with the property, as well as damages for trespass. The High Court granted interlocutory injunctions in October 2019.
Coates argued on appeal that section 3 required the case to be brought in the Circuit Court because the property was his principal private residence and the mortgage predated December 2009. The Court of Appeal held that section 3 concerns proceedings seeking a possession order under the special procedure in the Circuit Court Rules. The receivers’ plenary proceedings were framed in trespass and sought injunctions to let them exercise their powers; they had no power of sale. The reliefs sought therefore did not fall within the possession procedure covered by section 3, and the jurisdictional defence lacked substance.
The court did not decide whether the property was Coates’s principal private residence. It said the High Court should not have determined that issue on an interlocutory application, where the evidence conflicted and there had been no cross-examination. That question was left for a case in which its resolution is necessary.
In considering the injunctions, the Court of Appeal said Coates had provided no evidence about the impact of leaving the property or his possible alternative accommodation. It concluded that the receivers had a strong arguable case and that the evidence supported granting the reliefs, while noting that the order would require him to vacate his residence. The court refused the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. Its preliminary view was that appeal costs should follow the event, with 14 days allowed for Coates to seek a hearing on a different costs order.