The High Court granted an injunction allowing joint receivers to take possession of three properties in Dublin and to receive rents from any tenants, after finding the plaintiffs had a strong case likely to succeed at trial. The court said the properties would not be sold before the trial.
The plaintiffs were Tom O’Brien, Hilary Larkin and Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Designated Activity Company, identified in the judgment as Tanager. The defendants were Patrick McMahon and Patrick McMahon, acting as administrator ad litem of Angela McMahon, who had died.
The properties are Clara House, 9 Castleknock Road, Dublin 15; 50 Castleknock Glade, Dublin 15; and 14 Castlegate Square, Adamstown Castle, Lucan. The court said loans secured on the properties were due and unpaid after repayment had been demanded. Tanager was the registered owner of the charges, and O’Brien and Larkin had been appointed joint receivers over each property in August 2019.
The plaintiffs sought orders to regain possession of the first two properties and prevent interference with their possession of the third. The court treated the relief concerning the first two as mandatory, requiring the higher interlocutory standard, and the relief concerning the third as prohibitory. It noted the plaintiffs had entered the third property peaceably with the agreement of a tenant placed there by the defendants.
The defendants challenged the receivers’ appointments, argued they had acted as consumers, disputed the effect of a bank merger on Tanager’s title, and objected to delay. The judge rejected those objections. She found the appointment deeds validly appointed the receivers under the mortgage documents, and said no unfair term or developed consumer-law argument had been identified. Tanager’s registration as owner of the charges was conclusive absent evidence of mistake or fraud, and no application to rectify the register had been made. The court also found the timeline explained the delay.
In granting the motion, the judge said the balance of convenience favoured relief, in part because rents might not be accounted for or available to the plaintiffs if the injunction were refused. She declined to consider a final allegation about criminal money because it was not supported by affidavit, and said there was no evidence of improper or criminal conduct by the plaintiffs. The ruling was interlocutory; entitlement to possession and sale remained for trial.