The High Court has refused a married couple’s application to stop the sale of mortgaged properties while their case proceeds, finding that damages could compensate them if they later prove the receivers handled a sale negligently or breached their duty of care.
Ms Justice Eileen Roberts said the couple had raised a fair issue to be tried, including a dispute over an alleged 2021 agreement to let them pursue planning changes and manage a sale. The defendants deny that any such agreement was made. The judge did not decide that dispute or make findings of fact on the competing evidence at this interlocutory stage.
The couple’s application sought to restrain sales of the secured holiday homes, a vacant house at 4 Artillery Place in Newbridge, and the Garrison Bar. They also sought other orders, including limits on interference with the properties and access to one of them. The court’s conclusion addressed the proposed sale of the holiday homes and 4 Artillery Place.
The properties secure loans on which the couple consented to a High Court judgment in 2018 for €3,451,120.13 plus costs. The judgment remains unsatisfied. The parties agreed that €3,484,694.18 was due as of 16 March 2022, with interest accruing at about €10,000 per quarter.
The couple argued that changing the planning status of some of the holiday homes and selling units individually could produce more value. Their valuation evidence put the potential value of the 16 units at about €3.44 million, assuming vacant possession and other conditions. The defendants disputed that figure and relied on lower valuations and estimated planning costs. The judge said the valuations used differing assumptions and methodologies and did not resolve their conflict on this application.
Justice Roberts said a receiver’s duty is to take reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale. That does not require every possible step to maximise value, she said, and a receiver may weigh added expense or delay against a quicker sale. Whether the duty was met will depend on the facts.
The court said the dispute concerned control and strategy for selling secured investment properties, rather than whether they could be sold. It found the balance of convenience favoured allowing the validly appointed receivers and the lender to dispose of the holiday homes and 4 Artillery Place in discharge of the 2018 judgment. They must account fully to the couple for the disposal process.
The ruling does not authorise disposal of the Garrison Bar: the judge noted there was no receiver validly appointed over it. The court recommended cooperation on the sales process and listed the case for mention on 16 March 2023 to settle the order, address legal costs and give directions to advance the trial timetable.