Judgment: 2014-08-22 · Court archive

High Court orders defendant to hand eight properties to receivers pending trial

The interlocutory orders require possession of the mortgaged properties and bar interference with the receivers. The court did not finally determine the validity of their appointment.

High Court · [2014] IEHC 415

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Gerard Scriven (Defendant)
  • Bank of Scotland plc
  • Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited
  • David Keane (Judge)
What

The interlocutory orders require possession of the mortgaged properties and bar interference with the receivers. The court did not finally determine the validity of their appointment.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Cork
  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 4 June 2014

    The properties comprise seven in Cork and one in Dublin. The receivers were appointed on 4 June 2014 under deeds made by the bank. Their plenary proceedings, issued in July, seek possession and related relief. The injunction ruling is interlocutory: the court found a serious question to be tried and a clear and strong prima facie case for the mandatory relief, but did not finally decide the underlying dispute.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The properties comprise seven in Cork and one in Dublin. The receivers were appointed on 4 June 2014 under deeds made by the bank. Their plenary proceedings, issued in July, seek possession and related relief. The injunction ruling is interlocutory: the court found a serious question to be tried and a clear and strong prima facie case for the mandatory relief, but did not finally decide the underlying dispute.

The High Court has ordered Gerard Scriven to deliver eight mortgaged residential properties to joint receivers appointed by Bank of Scotland plc, and restrained him from obstructing their work while the dispute proceeds.

In a judgment delivered on 22 August 2014, Mr Justice David Keane granted the receivers’ application for interlocutory injunctions. The order requires Scriven to hand over possession of the properties, keys and access devices, and documents relating to any tenancies. It also restrains him from attending at the properties, obstructing the receivers or interfering with their functions. The receivers may notify occupants of the orders by telephone, email or post.

The properties comprise seven in Cork and one in Dublin. The receivers were appointed on 4 June 2014 under deeds made by the bank. Their plenary proceedings, issued in July, seek possession and related relief. The injunction ruling is interlocutory: the court found a serious question to be tried and a clear and strong prima facie case for the mandatory relief, but did not finally decide the underlying dispute.

The receivers’ evidence was that Scriven had defaulted on two loans made in 2007, with the outstanding debt exceeding €3.69 million. They said he rejected their authority, withheld information about leases and tenants, and told occupants to pay rent to him. Scriven accepted in argument that he had made no repayments on either loan since 2013. His letters asserted that the rents belonged to him and that the receivers’ appointment was invalid.

Scriven raised concerns about the appointment documents, the bank’s demand for repayment, and whether Bank of Scotland plc had succeeded to the rights of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited. He also said he understood that the bank had securitised and sold loans. The judge concluded that these arguments, individually and together, did not prevent the receivers from establishing a serious question to be tried. The judgment records that the court was shown merger orders and company records concerning the transfer of the Irish bank’s assets and liabilities in 2010.

The judge said the balance of convenience favoured the injunctions and noted the difficult position tenants faced amid the dispute. He ordered relief in terms of all five paragraphs of the receivers’ notice of motion. The ruling did not grant a final possession order in the plenary proceedings.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review