The High Court refused a request by two joint receivers for an interim order giving them possession of a property in Niles House, Bridge Street, Kilcock, County Kildare. The receivers had sought access to manage the property; the court held that they had not shown a strong case that they were likely to succeed at trial.
Ms Justice Stack delivered the judgment on 25 February 2022. She treated the requested possession order as mandatory interlocutory relief, which required the receivers to meet the higher threshold set out in *Maha Lingham v Health Service Executive*. She rejected their argument that the relief was merely prohibitory.
The receivers said they had authority under a mortgage deed to enter and manage the property. But the judge found they had not supplied key documents needed to establish that authority at this stage. These included evidence that the mortgagee’s power of sale had become exercisable, the original deed appointing the first receiver, the deed transferring the mortgage to Promontoria, and the deed substituting Promontoria into the receivership arrangement. The court said the receivers could not rely on earlier proceedings and the rules against relitigating issues to replace those proofs on this application; whether those rules might apply at a full hearing remained open.
The judge also found an issue to be tried about why possession was being sought. The defendant relied on a tax registration form referring to rental income and property sales, and gave uncontradicted evidence that vacant units had not been re-let. The receivers said they wanted possession to manage the property. The court was not satisfied at this stage that the purpose was consistent with that stated aim. The receivers still had the benefit of an earlier order concerning collection of rents and licence fees.
The judgment also addressed entry to the property. The earlier order had not granted the receivers possession. The second receiver accepted that their security company had taken possession of this particular unit in error and installed locks. The court said entry had to be peaceable or authorised by a court order. It made no finding about possession of other units at Niles House or other properties.
The court refused the interlocutory application. It concluded that the receivers had not established a strong case and said it would also refuse the application on discretionary grounds, given the unresolved concern about the purpose of seeking possession. The underlying claim for possession remained for determination; the judgment did not grant possession to the receivers.