The High Court granted an interlocutory injunction allowing a receiver to maintain and manage properties on Longwood Avenue and collect their rents while a wider dispute proceeds to trial.
Mr Justice Tony O’Connor made the order after hearing an application on 25 and 26 October 2017. The injunction was confined to properties listed in the second schedule to an amended statement of claim delivered on 1 November 2017. The rents collected by the receiver are to be held in an account from which maintenance costs can be paid.
The judge said the key issue was the balance of convenience, including whether either side could pay damages if it lost at trial and whether the status quo should be maintained. The plaintiff did not dispute a multimillion-euro debt and did not appear to be in a secure position to repay rents, the judgment said. The defendants undertook to pay any damages assessed against them if required, and the court said there was no question about their ability to do so. The plaintiff had also acknowledged recovering rent and referred to maintenance and other costs. The judge said the receiver would have to meet statutory and contractual duties to maintain the properties.
The validity of the receiver’s appointment remained in issue in the amended claim. For the purpose of this application, however, counsel accepted that the receiver could be treated as lawfully appointed. The injunction was an interim measure; the judgment did not finally decide the appointment question or the underlying claims.
The application also sought interlocutory orders concerning premises behind 55 Fitzwilliam Square, formerly rented to a restaurant. The judge said there was little opposition to striking out those parts of the application. The receiver remained in possession, and the defendants undertook not to dispose of the premises pending determination of the proceedings. The court declined to take a definitive view of the plaintiff’s argument about a 2010 demand letter, saying the application only required consideration of whether there was a serious issue to be tried.
The court set directions for the next steps toward a plenary trial, including a deadline of 22 November 2017 for the plaintiff’s reply and defence to the counterclaim. A motion for further directions was to be returnable on 23 November. The judge said the directions were intended to help allocate a trial date in January or February 2018 and expressed concern that legal costs could be disproportionate to the damages claims.
A postscript records that in December 2018, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered judgment determining questions in a case stated about entitlement to appoint a receiver. This judgment does not state the answer to those questions.