The High Court refused Donore Garages Limited and Paul O’Reilly’s application for interlocutory relief concerning commercial premises at 50 Patrick Street, including 31 and 31A Kevin’s Street, and granted the receiver’s cross-application for orders over the property.
The ruling concerns two consolidated proceedings. In one, the plaintiffs seek specific performance of an alleged agreement with Ennis Property Finance DAC, or damages. In the other, they challenge Stephen Tennant’s authority as receiver and sought orders restricting his access to the premises, rent collection and sale, among other relief. The court stressed that its assessment was interlocutory and did not finally decide the parties’ disputes.
The plaintiffs argued that they had an ongoing agreement with the bank to settle loans for €2.1 million and release security over 11 properties. The judgment records that 10 of the 11 properties had been bought back, but €285,000 remained unpaid in relation to the premises. The plaintiffs attributed the delay to title problems they said were outside their control. The receiver disputed that an ongoing agreement existed.
The judge considered correspondence setting deadlines for payment and stating that the settlement had expired. He concluded, on a prima facie basis, that the plaintiffs did not have a good arguable case for the injunctions. He also found that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the receiver to perform his duties. The judge accepted that the plaintiffs had not been told promptly that a title issue had been resolved, but said that did not alter his assessment at this stage.
The receiver had to establish his appointment for the interlocutory hearing. Copies of loan transfer documents initially lacked signatures, but evidence produced during the hearing included a copy of an executed amended purchase deed. The judge was satisfied for the purpose of the motions that the receiver had been duly appointed; this was not a final determination.
The court directed that the lis pendens registered in both proceedings be vacated, finding no legal basis for them to remain. It also granted the receiver the relief sought in paragraphs (a) to (j) of his motion, including orders for the plaintiffs to surrender vacant possession, provide access devices and records, account for rents received since the receiver’s appointment on 8 December 2016, and not obstruct marketing the property for sale. The plaintiffs’ application was refused. The judgment did not determine the final outcome of the consolidated proceedings.