The High Court granted a receiver’s application for orders allowing him to take possession of and access property at 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Charlemont Street, and restraining the defendants from obstructing him. The orders were interlocutory; the judgment did not determine a final claim for possession.
Martin Ferris, appointed as receiver over certain assets of John Meagher, sought the orders against Meagher and Echoforde Limited. The court described Ferris’s appointment as purported at that stage of the proceedings. The mortgages gave the receiver powers to enter and take possession, but barred leases without the bank’s written consent. It was undisputed that Meagher had granted Echoforde a lease without that consent.
The lease was stated to run for ten years from 1 May 2012, with annual rent of €87,500. The judgment noted that it provided for a lower “current rent level” to continue until refurbishment at 7/8 Charlemont Street was complete and the building fit for its intended purpose. A cheque for €9,375, described as a quarter’s rent, was also noted. The court considered these terms unusual and said the lease did not specify how completion or fitness for purpose would be determined.
Echoforde opposed the application, arguing that the receiver’s appointment was questionable because the mortgage referred to a provision of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881, later repealed. It also argued it could rely on the lease against the receiver as it could against Meagher, and challenged bringing the proceedings in the receiver’s name alone. The judgment records that the appointment argument was raised for the first time during oral submissions.
The court rejected those arguments at the interlocutory stage. Relying on earlier decisions, it found the repeal did not undermine the receiver’s appointment powers in this case, and that the form of proceedings caused no difficulty. It distinguished Echoforde’s position from Meagher’s: the receiver had no part in granting the lease, and the company could not rely on the absence of consent to remain in occupation against him.
Justice Birmingham concluded that Echoforde had not shown an arguable defence and was a trespasser. He said the orders were warranted on that basis without applying the Campus Oil principles; he also found that the balance of convenience favoured the receiver because occupation would make a sale difficult. The court acknowledged possible effects on eleven hostel employees and visitors with bookings, but granted the orders against both defendants. Meagher had not participated in the proceedings.