The High Court has refused Brendan O’Reilly and Darren O’Reilly’s application for interlocutory injunctions concerning two properties in County Meath, finding they had not raised a fair issue to be tried.
The brothers sought orders requiring receivers appointed by Promontoria (Finn) Limited to give up possession of 17 Elm Drive, Athlumney Wood, Navan, and 7 Distillery Quay, Mill Lane, Navan, and restraining the defendants from selling or marketing the properties. Justice Emily Egan delivered the judgment on 7 April 2022.
The loan facilities, originally advanced by Ulster Bank, were secured against the two properties and transferred to Promontoria in 2015. The brothers did not dispute that the loans had been advanced or that repayments had fallen into default. They argued, among other things, that interest had been overcharged, demands for repayment were invalid, an alleged reduced-payment agreement with the Bank affected Promontoria’s rights, and the receivers’ appointments were legally defective.
The judge concluded that the brothers had not established a fair issue to be tried on the notice of transfer, the demands, the alleged agreement, the appointment documents or the interest-rate dispute. On the alleged payment agreement, she noted that the brothers provided no supporting evidence setting out its terms or showing that it applied to both properties. She also found that the facility letters’ reference to “ECB rate plus 1.35%” did not establish that the minimum bid rate was the only rate contractually available.
Because the application failed at the fair-issue threshold, the court did not need to decide the balance of convenience. Justice Egan said that, if that question had arisen, she would have regarded the balance as even and considered the brothers’ offered undertakings in favour of interim relief.
The court also said neither receiver had obtained possession, so an order requiring them to deliver it up was unnecessary. It noted the defendants’ position that the receivers had no power of sale, while Promontoria had not undertaken not to seek to exercise a sale power if it later took possession. The judge said that if the brothers succeeded at trial in proving the appointments invalid, the power of sale would not have become exercisable.
The court listed costs and any other matters arising from the judgment for argument on 28 April 2022 at 11am. The judgment did not determine the ultimate merits of the parties’ disputes.