The High Court has ruled that Ken Fennell was validly appointed receiver and manager over two mortgaged properties in County Wexford, and that he was not bound by leases granted without the bank’s prior written consent. It dismissed Hugh Corrigan’s counterclaim for damages but did not decide the receiver’s claim for economic loss.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Pilkington on 18 February 2020, followed a five-day hearing in proceedings begun in August 2014. The properties at Kilmuckridge and Oulart secured a loan advanced by IIB Bank plc, later known as KBC Bank Ireland plc. The bank demanded €2,381,345.20 in May 2014 and appointed Fennell receiver the following July.
Corrigan challenged the appointment, including on the basis that the appointment deed named Fennell as receiver but did not expressly call him a “receiver and manager”. The judge found that the deed, read with the 2007 mortgage, appointed him to both roles and that the required execution formalities had been followed. She also rejected the argument that using “plc” without full stops made the bank’s demand or appointment invalid.
The judgment records years of disputes over possession. An interlocutory order in August 2014 required Corrigan to deliver up the properties and not obstruct the receiver. Possession of the Kilmuckridge property was attempted several times; it was ultimately secured by the receiver in January 2017. The court had earlier found Corrigan in contempt after he failed to comply with court orders and undertakings.
The court considered leases covering commercial premises and apartments at the two properties. The mortgage prohibited leases without the bank’s prior written consent. The judge found no evidence that consent had been sought or given and ruled that the leases did not bind the mortgagee or the receiver. She noted that this did not determine any rights between the parties to the leases themselves.
Corrigan alleged damage to the Kilmuckridge property and sought damages on several grounds. His witness documented electrical damage but could not identify who caused it. The judge found no evidence that the receiver or people acting under his control caused the alleged damage, and dismissed the counterclaim in full.
The receiver presented a surveyor’s estimate of €389,152 in potential rent forgone. The judge declined to consider that economic-loss claim in these proceedings at that stage, noting the history of litigation over the properties. She said the parties would be heard on the terms of final orders, including costs. The judgment did not specify the final orders or costs.