The High Court has refused an interlocutory injunction sought by Martin Casey and David Casey to prevent a receiver from taking steps to sell farmland in Ennis, Co Clare, charged as security for their borrowing. The court found that the brothers had not raised a fair question to be tried about the validity of a judgment against Martin Casey or the receiver’s appointment and powers. It also concluded that the balance of justice did not favour an injunction.
The proceedings concern a loan facility agreed with Allied Irish Banks in 2010 for almost €3 million. The judgment said the loan was not repaid when due, and the debt, then approximately €3.5 million, was later acquired by Everyday Finance DAC. The Caseys did not dispute that money remained owing. A receiver was appointed over the land in August 2019.
AIB obtained judgment in default of appearance against Martin Casey in February 2014 for €3,425,096. No judgment was obtained against David Casey. The brothers argued that the judgment against Martin was invalid because the loan debt had not been set out in sufficient detail, relying on a 2019 Supreme Court ruling. The High Court said they had not entered an appearance in the original proceedings, lodged an appeal or made a valid application to set the judgment aside. It held they could not now rely on the later ruling to reopen that procedural issue.
The brothers also argued that the receiver’s appointment was invalid because the appointment deed did not identify the relevant folio, and that the receiver lacked a power of sale. The court rejected those arguments at this stage, referring to the mortgage’s identification of the folio and previous High Court decisions concerning receiver appointments and sale processes.
In considering the balance of justice, the court distinguished the case from one involving a family home. It held that farmland can be commercial or investment property, like an inherited pub or shop, and that its family history and sentimental value did not make damages inadequate. The judgment also noted that the brothers had not explained why damages would be inadequate for them, had not yet given an undertaking as to damages, and that no evidence showed they could meet a damages award if delay in sale caused loss to Everyday.
The court refused the interlocutory relief. It asked the parties to discuss outstanding matters and said the case would be listed for mention one week after judgment if further final orders were needed. The ruling addresses the interim injunction application; it does not decide the underlying claims at trial.