The Court of Appeal has dismissed Paul Farrell’s appeal against the refusal of an interim injunction aimed at stopping the buyers of a Baldonnell business property from using or taking possession of it. The appeal concerned interim relief only; the underlying action has not been decided at trial.
Farrell challenged the sale of Unit B1 at Baldonnell Business Centre, County Dublin, alleging, among other matters, that signatures on 2011 loan facility letters had been fraudulently attached and that the mortgagee’s power of sale was therefore not properly exercised. Those allegations have not been proven. Farrell did not appeal the High Court’s refusal of an injunction against the Property Registration Authority.
The High Court refused the injunction in November 2022. It found no serious issue to be tried on the substantive complaints, that the balance of justice favoured refusing relief, and that Farrell had delayed in applying. He argued on appeal that the buyers had notice of the alleged fraud through correspondence and proceedings referred to in the sale documents, and that the balance of justice favoured preserving his use of the property while the action continued.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the High Court’s decision. It said the buyers knew of the mortgage charge, related court proceedings and Farrell’s objections to the sale. But the correspondence provided to them contained only a general reference to “fraudulent paperwork”; it did not explain the alleged forgery of the 2011 letters. The court also found no evidence that the buyers had received the draft affidavits in which Farrell set out that allegation.
The court concluded that Farrell had not established a serious issue that the buyers knew of the alleged fraud or wilfully ignored suspicious circumstances. It also upheld the High Court’s assessment that damages could compensate Farrell if he succeeds at trial, and that the balance of justice favoured the buyers. Their registration as owners after the High Court hearing was an additional reason to refuse the injunction. The court did not decide the underlying fraud allegations or determine the final rights at trial.
The appeal was dismissed. The court proposed awarding costs to the buyers, while allowing any party 14 days from receipt of the electronic judgment to seek a different costs order.