The High Court has ordered Hilary Hooton to give up possession of premises where she ran a business providing emergency accommodation for homeless people, pending the substantive hearing of a possession claim brought by a receiver appointed by the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA).
Mr Justice Michael Peart said the receiver had established a “very strong” case for an interlocutory order. He stressed that the application was not the trial of the action and that his view was provisional, not binding on the judge who might hear the case to completion.
The premises were part of the security for loans to Ms Hooton’s husband and son. The judgment says the loans and mortgage were acquired by National Asset Loan Management, a NAMA group entity, and that NAMA appointed Aidan Murphy as statutory receiver in July 2013 after defaults by the borrowers.
Ms Hooton told the court in an affidavit that she had taken over the accommodation business from her husband in February 2008. She said she had an oral monthly tenancy with her husband and son, paid €3,250 a month towards their mortgage payments, and had occupied and run the business from the premises for more than five years. She also said the bank knew about her role and the business following a meeting in March 2009.
The receiver argued that the mortgage required the bank’s prior written consent for the property to be let, and that no such consent had been given. The judge considered whether the bank’s alleged knowledge, and payments made towards the borrowers’ loan, could make the tenancy binding on the mortgagee. He found the evidence fell well short of showing clear consent or acquiescence, or a basis to prevent the bank from denying the tenancy’s validity.
The judge concluded that Ms Hooton had no arguable defence on that point at the interlocutory stage. Applying principles for injunctions against trespass, he ordered relief in the terms of paragraphs 1 to 4 of the receiver’s motion. The judgment does not reproduce those paragraphs, so it does not specify every element of the order. The judge postponed finalising the order for about a week to allow consideration of a short, reasonable period for an orderly handover, taking account of the business operating at the premises.