The High Court has restrained Ennis Property Finance Designated Activity Company from appointing a receiver over the Elphin Public House while Wingview Limited’s case proceeds to trial. The interlocutory injunction is conditional on Wingview continuing specified undertakings and its undertaking as to damages.
The dispute concerns a 2016 settlement of Wingview’s debt. The company acknowledged owing €2,527,354.06 and agreed to pay €1.5 million in stages, including a final €1 million by 31 March 2017. The settlement provided that, after payment, the lender would release security over the pub and limit its recourse for the remaining debt to a site behind the premises.
Wingview paid the first €500,000. It sought an €800,000 loan from AIB, alongside €200,000 in shareholder funds, to make the final payment. AIB initially required confirmation about the site’s transfer. Its revised offer of 11 April removed that requirement but sought confirmation that Ennis would release security over the other assets and limit recourse to the site.
Ennis did not provide the confirmation Wingview sought. It treated the missed 31 March deadline as a settlement default and invoked a clause providing for 10% monthly increases on unpaid settlement amounts. In correspondence in May, its agent said the penalties had reached €1.21 million. Ennis later waived that clause in its defence, while maintaining its position that the settlement was not invalid.
Wingview argued that Ennis was required to provide confirmations needed to complete the refinancing, and that the settlement continued until Ennis made a proper demand under the original finance documents. Ennis disputed those arguments. The judge did not decide the underlying contractual dispute. He found that Wingview had raised fair questions for trial about how the settlement should be interpreted, whether a term requiring the confirmations could be implied, and when a default and demand occurred.
The court also concluded that damages might not compensate Wingview adequately if a receiver took control and the pub was sold, because estimating the resulting loss could require substantial expert assessment. It rejected Ennis’s challenge to Wingview’s undertaking as to damages and found the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the existing arrangement.
The order prohibits Ennis from appointing or purporting to appoint a receiver over the premises until the High Court proceedings are determined. Wingview must continue the undertakings in clauses 1 to 9 of the parties’ interim agreement, and Ennis must continue its undertaking under clause 12. The judgment does not resolve the parties’ claims at trial.