The High Court has granted the purchaser of the Ballyknockan Inn property near Blessington an interlocutory order for possession after rejecting attempts by members of the O’Flaherty family to block registration of the sale.
Terence and Elaine O’Flaherty were part-owners of lands in two County Wicklow folios which had secured borrowings originally advanced in 2005. The current chargeholder, Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC, transferred the property in March 2025 to J&D Cullen Property Limited for €100,000 following a sale arranged by a receiver.
The O’Flahertys sought an injunction preventing Tailte Éireann from completing registration of J&D Cullen as owner. They advanced several arguments, including that the original loan and mortgage contained unfair consumer terms, that there were boundary problems, that there had been a break in the chain of ownership of the mortgage, and that issues arose over the sale process.
Mr Justice Micheál O’Connell rejected each of the grounds relied upon for the interlocutory application. He found that the 2005 borrowing was for the purchase of a public house business operated by the borrowers and that Terence and Elaine O’Flaherty were not acting as consumers in that transaction.
The judge also held that no fair issue had been established over the successive transfers of the registered charge. He found that earlier 2017 proceedings, in which a receiver obtained an injunction for possession, prevented the plaintiffs from reopening arguments that could have been raised at that time.
A separate claim that the property had been sold at an undervalue was raised only during oral submissions and without supporting evidence. The court ruled that it could not fairly be advanced in the motions before it.
J&D Cullen’s application for possession was granted on an interlocutory basis. The judge said its title case was strong and found that family members occupying the property were there only with the permission of the earlier owners and were also in breach of the existing 2017 injunction.
The court separately refused an application to restore connection to a wastewater treatment plant, noting that maintenance charges under a 2005 easement agreement had remained largely unpaid for more than 20 years.