The High Court has refused an application by Breccia to discharge an interlocutory injunction protecting Joseph Sheehan’s shares in Blackrock Hospital Limited (BHL) while his substantive case proceeds to trial.
The injunction, first granted on 22 December 2014 and later continued by consent, restrains Breccia and the second defendant from calling in Sheehan’s loans or enforcing against his security. Mr Justice Robert Haughton ruled on 20 November 2017 that the order should remain in place. The ruling preserves the position pending trial; it does not determine whether Sheehan’s allegations are true or grant a permanent injunction.
Breccia argued that a Court of Appeal decision in related proceedings had removed the legal basis for the injunction, and that delay and discovery disputes also justified lifting it. The appeal had rejected Sheehan’s argument that the shareholders’ agreement contained an implied term of good faith and fair dealing. Sheehan submitted that separate claims—including conspiracy and misuse of confidential information—remained live.
Justice Haughton found that those claims, as well as claims of inducement to breach contract and intentional interference with economic interests, were not bound to fail. He stressed that the application was not the occasion to assess the supporting evidence or the claims’ prospects at trial. The court also said it could not rule out the possibility that an alleged conspiracy concerning the loans of George Duffy had affected Breccia’s acquisition of Sheehan’s loans. These are questions for the substantive proceedings, not findings that misconduct occurred.
The judge considered Sheehan’s shareholding a property right that could be lost if the injunction were lifted and a receiver appointed. He found damages would not adequately remedy that loss. He also found no evidence Breccia would suffer meaningful loss beyond delayed repayment and accruing interest if the injunction continued.
On delay, the judge rejected Breccia’s account that responsibility rested solely with Sheehan. He found that all parties bore some responsibility for delays in discovery and that the delay was not inordinate or a sufficient reason to discharge the order.
The judge also found Breccia had not come to court with clean hands and had shown a lack of candour. He pointed to its solicitors’ July 2016 letter threatening proceedings against HIG Capital if it funded Sheehan’s proposed refinancing, and concluded the correspondence appeared intended to deter that funding. The court accepted that this history supported Sheehan’s explanation for not redeeming the loans and held that non-redemption did not justify lifting the injunction.
The interlocutory injunction therefore remains in force until trial. The court made no final determination of the underlying claims.