The High Court has struck out parts of David Wright’s defence but left his challenge to the appointment of Ken Tyrrell as receiver for trial. Mr Justice Brian O’Moore ruled on an application by Mr Tyrrell, the plaintiff and receiver, to strike out Mr Wright’s defence and counterclaim.
The court said the parties accepted that the case would proceed to trial. It therefore declined to confine Mr Wright’s surviving challenge to the receiver’s appointment to narrow grounds proposed by Mr Tyrrell. The judge said the motion had not established that Mr Wright had accepted that the relevant mortgages were executed and registered. Earlier decisions on an application for an interlocutory injunction had not finally determined those issues.
The judge struck out paragraphs 9, 13, 14 and 15 of the defence because their contentions conflicted with findings in earlier proceedings brought by Launceston Property Finance. He also struck out paragraph 12 insofar as it denied that Launceston acquired Irish Bank Resolution Corporation’s interest under the 2008 and 2012 facility letters. The part of paragraph 12 concerning proof of the mortgage remained. Paragraphs 2 to 8, 16 to 21 and 25 also remained, alongside paragraphs 10 and 11, which the judgment described as admissions.
The judge treated paragraphs 23 and 24, which denied that the properties had been sold or were being sold, as unsustainable because Mr Wright accepted they had been sold. The judgment noted that Mr Wright alleged the sales were at an undervalue, and that Mr Tyrrell’s counsel accepted he could apply to amend his counterclaim to add that allegation. A separate hearing would give directions on whether proposed amendments, including an allegation about the receiver’s accounts, would be allowed and on what terms.
The court did not consider Mr Tyrrell’s request to strike out counterclaim allegations concerning Launceston, Anglo or Pepper Finance. Launceston had not been served at the motion hearing, and the judgment said the other entities were not properly joined as counterclaim defendants. The judge left any challenge to those pleadings to parties affected by them. He said the counterclaim’s request to restrain dealings with the properties was redundant because they had been sold; its request to set aside the receiver’s appointment remained alive.
The ruling was on the strike-out application, not a trial of the surviving issues. The judgment recorded that Mr Wright had applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the earlier Court of Appeal judgments. It did not determine that application.