The Supreme Court has dismissed Jerry Beades’s appeal against an interlocutory injunction restraining him and those acting with him from entering or interfering with three properties and from harassing or intimidating their occupants. The restraints remain pending the trial of the action; the appeal court did not decide the receivers’ final entitlement to the properties.
The appeal concerned an order made by the High Court on 30 September 2013, on an application by joint receivers Declan Taite and Patrick Brennan. The receivers had been appointed by Ulster Bank in March 2013 over properties mortgaged by Beades. They said he interfered with their efforts to take control and manage the properties, including by attempting to change locks at 3 Clancy Court. Beades acknowledged changing locks, while disputing the validity of the receivers’ appointment and raising other objections.
The Supreme Court said the injunction, though framed as prohibitory, effectively gave the receivers substantial control pending trial and went a long way towards the possession relief sought in the plenary proceedings. It therefore reviewed the evidence against the higher threshold for a mandatory injunction. The court concluded that the receivers had a strong case that they were validly appointed. It also found no basis to overturn the High Court’s treatment of hearsay evidence: the evidence was admissible on the interlocutory application, and the High Court had attached less weight to material from sources without first-hand knowledge.
The court said a separate summary judgment decision had already determined that the bank could rely on a dated demand letter to meet the contractual requirement for repayment demand. Beades could not reopen that issue in these proceedings. The appeal court also rejected his other grounds, including objections about copies of mortgage deeds, access to the hearing audio recording and the length of the stay.
The Supreme Court stressed that the injunction was temporary and did not prevent Beades from challenging the receivers’ claims at the full hearing, except on matters already finally determined. It noted that the receivers had taken no further steps to bring the action to a conclusion and that it understood some properties had since been sold. Those later developments did not provide a basis to set aside the High Court’s interlocutory orders. The court dismissed the appeal.