The Court of Appeal has dismissed Aidan Davey’s appeal against interlocutory injunctions concerning a house at 23 Michael Collins Road, Mervue, Galway, where Karl O’Neill had been appointed receiver. The court also rejected Davey’s appeal over the High Court’s refusal to grant relief on his cross-motion challenging O’Neill’s affidavit.
The injunctions, granted by the High Court on 8 December 2017, required Davey to hand over keys and access devices and restrained him from obstructing the receiver, collecting rent, interfering with the receivership, marketing or selling the property, or trespassing there. The Court of Appeal heard two appeals against decisions made on interlocutory applications in the underlying plenary proceedings; it did not determine the final claims at trial.
O’Neill’s affidavit said that Start Mortgages appointed him receiver by deed on 17 June 2016. He described mortgage loans of €150,000 and a further €45,000, arrears, demands for repayment, and a claimed balance of €214,091.03 as of 24 March 2017. Those matters were evidence supporting the interim application, not final findings on the underlying debt claim.
The affidavit also alleged that Davey pressed tenants to pay him rent, attempted to evict them, and interfered with locks and security shutters after the tenants left. The Court of Appeal noted that Davey had filed no affidavit responding to those substantive allegations. It held that the evidence before the High Court was not controverted in any essential detail and justified interim relief.
Davey argued that O’Neill’s affidavit was invalid because its jurat did not state the precise time of swearing and it gave a business address rather than a home address. The appeal court rejected both objections, referring to prior Court of Appeal decisions and the court’s power to receive affidavits despite defects. It also found no evidence supporting Davey’s allegations of fraud or perjury.
The court declined to consider a new argument under section 97 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 because it had not been raised in the High Court. It added that the provision appeared inapplicable: the mortgage dated from 2004, before Chapter 3 of the Act commenced in 2009. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the interlocutory injunctions in place; the final claims remained for trial.