The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Gaynor’s appeal against an injunction restraining him from entering or interfering with three lands in County Westmeath while proceedings concerning their sale continue.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 13 October 2022, upheld an order made by the High Court on 15 October 2021. That order restrains Mr Gaynor, and people acting for or with him who have notice of it, from trespassing on the lands in Folios 10753F, 2538F and 7609F; obstructing the Official Assignee’s possession or sale of them; contacting prospective purchasers; or interfering with the Official Assignee’s functions in Mr Gaynor’s bankruptcy estate.
The Official Assignee told the High Court that contracts had been made to sell the lands for a total of €685,000, but that interference prevented the sales from completing. The judgment records evidence that Mr Gaynor put up signs suggesting the lands were not for sale, interfered with sale advertising, made claims concerning the lands and placed cattle on them. Mr Gaynor did not dispute those actions in the appeal.
Mr Gaynor argued that he should not have been adjudicated bankrupt in 2015 because, he said, he had paid or tendered sums to his former solicitors and others. He also alleged that his sister had an interest in one of the properties. Those were his claims; the Court of Appeal did not determine them afresh. It held that the bankruptcy adjudication had already been challenged through a show-cause application, appeals and applications for leave to appeal, all unsuccessful, and could not be reopened in this appeal.
The court also rejected his argument that the Official Assignee lacked entitlement to seek the injunction because the property registrations were in the name of the former Official Assignee. It held that the lands vested in the holder of the office, and passed to the successor when he took office. The court noted that the sister’s claim to one property had previously been determined against her and that Mr Gaynor could not rely on another person’s asserted rights to justify trespass.
The appeal concerned the injunction, not a new trial of the bankruptcy or the sale contracts. The Court of Appeal dismissed it. It proposed that the Official Assignee receive his costs, subject to either party seeking a different order within 21 days of electronic delivery of the judgment; a short costs hearing could follow if needed.