The High Court has refused Peggie (otherwise Margaret) Byrne and John Byrne’s application to stop the sale of two commercial properties on South Main Street, Wexford, after finding they had already been sold at public auction before the application was issued.
In a judgment delivered on 2 October 2025, Mr Justice Conor Dignam also refused the defendants’ request to set aside injunction orders made in November 2016. He allowed them 14 days from perfection of the new order to deliver a properly pleaded amended counterclaim. If they do not, the counterclaim will stand dismissed. The plaintiff, Shane McCarthy, may apply to the court in relation to any amended counterclaim within 21 days of receiving it.
The dispute concerns receivership and loans secured against properties at 88 and 90 South Main Street. The plaintiff’s case was that loans advanced by ACC in 2006 were called in in 2015 and that he was appointed receiver over both properties. The defendants challenged the validity of his appointment and other matters. The judge stressed that his summary of the background was not a finding of fact on those issues.
The defendants sought to set aside orders made by Gilligan J on 17 and 24 November 2016, including interlocutory injunctions restricting their access to the properties and contact with tenants or collection of rents. Justice Dignam found no basis to set aside the orders. He noted that the defendants had not put their service complaints on affidavit, had appeared in court on 24 November and given undertakings, and had waited more than six years to bring the application. He also said challenges to the merits of the injunction should have been raised then or on appeal.
The judge did not dismiss the counterclaim outright. He found it deficient because it did not specify the relief sought or clearly plead the supporting facts. However, he said it was possible to discern claims including trespass and challenges to the receiver’s appointment, and he was not satisfied that the high threshold for dismissal had been met. The defendants must clarify their claim or it will be dismissed under the order.
The defendants also sought an interlocutory injunction prohibiting or suspending the sale. The judge presumed, without making a finding, that there was a serious question to be tried. But he found the balance of justice did not favour relief: the auction had already taken place, the purchaser had acquired rights under the sale contract, and the defendants had delayed in seeking to restrain the sale despite being told in October 2021 that it was proceeding. He also considered damages an adequate remedy for the commercial properties and gave weight to the absence of an undertaking as to damages.
The court therefore refused both the request to set aside the 2016 orders and the injunction sought in these applications.