The Supreme Court has discharged a 2009 interlocutory injunction that gave receiver Tom Kavanagh possession of a commercial property in Wexford town, after allowing an appeal by Martin Power. The Court said its decision reflected the exceptional circumstances that had developed during more than 15 years of proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 13 May 2025, records that the property had remained unused since 2009. At one point between June 2023 and September 2024, it was entered on Wexford County Council’s derelict sites register. The receiver later addressed the Council’s concerns and the notice was lifted.
The receiver had told the Court in 2010 that he intended to prepare the property for sale or letting. Justice Hogan said the receiver later abandoned that plan, apparently deciding renovation would not be commercially worthwhile, but did not inform the courts at the time. The Court first learned of the change in November 2024. The judgment also records that the secured loan was sold to Pepper Finance in November 2023.
Justice Hogan identified three reasons for ending the injunction: the receiver’s responsibility for the lengthy progress of the litigation, his failure to update the Court after changing course, and the public interest consequences of the property’s prolonged disuse and period of dereliction. The judgment also acknowledged delays within the legal system and that Power’s counterclaim complicated the effort to dispose of the property. It said neither side appeared to have pursued the case with great urgency, but the receiver, as the plaintiff and party seeking equitable relief, bore ultimate responsibility for the unacceptable litigation delay.
The Court stressed that discharging the injunction did not decide that Power had rights or entitlements in the property, or that the receiver’s current possession was irregular. The receiver could apply afresh to the High Court for injunctive or other relief. Any such application would require the High Court to reconsider the consequences of the case and the parties’ respective rights in light of what had happened.
The appeal concerned continuation of interlocutory relief, not a final determination of the underlying property dispute. The Court’s order removed the existing injunction; it did not resolve the parties’ substantive claims.