The High Court has refused Paul Farrell’s application to restrain the purchasers of a commercial property in Baldonnell, Co Dublin, from taking possession or otherwise exercising ownership rights while his claim proceeds. The court also refused an injunction against the Property Registration Authority of Ireland (PRAI), which had not begun examining the purchasers’ registration application.
Ms Justice Stack gave judgment on 5 December 2022, following a hearing on 25 November. The application concerned Unit B1, Baldonnell Business Centre. Everyday Finance DAC had transferred the property to Ken Tyrell and Kieran Connolly and Rosemarie Connolly for €300,000. The transfer had been lodged for registration but was awaiting completion. The judge said the purchasers were its full beneficial owners in the meantime, while legal title would pass on registration.
The sale followed a contract signed by a receiver appointed by Everyday. The parties accepted that the receiver had no power of sale and lacked authority to sign that contract. However, the judge found that Everyday itself had power under the mortgage charge to sell and had executed the transfer. The receiver’s lack of authority to make the contract did not, in the judge’s view, invalidate Everyday’s later transfer.
Farrell alleged that AIB had fraudulently placed signatures on 2011 loan facility letters and argued that the resulting demand for repayment did not permit a sale. The alleged fraud had not been proven in court. The judge found that the purchasers had not been given enough information to know, even in outline, the specific allegations, and were not on notice of suspicious circumstances requiring further inquiry. She said that if the power of sale had been improperly exercised, the statutory remedy was damages against Everyday, rather than relief against the purchasers.
The judgment also rejected arguments that the sale was an abuse of process because earlier possession proceedings remained in abeyance, and that the alleged undervalue justified an injunction against the purchasers. Farrell’s proposed valuation evidence, putting the property’s open-market value at about €600,000, was not admitted because it had not been notified to the purchasers. The judge observed that litigation over title could depress the price.
The application was refused on delay grounds: the judge said Farrell had waited at least a year, and possibly 16 months, from the first steps to enforce the security before making a properly constituted application. She also concluded that the balance of justice favoured allowing the purchasers to manage the property pending the claim. The court did not order possession against Farrell or determine the underlying fraud allegation. It said any challenge to a later registration could be appealed to the Circuit Court under section 19 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.