The Court of Appeal has upheld interlocutory orders requiring Brian and Mary Patricia O’Donnell to vacate Gorse Hill and give the receiver keys and access devices. The court dismissed their appeal on 15 April 2015, but said it was not deciding the disputed legal and factual issues in the underlying proceedings.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made on 12 March 2015. It restrained the O’Donnells and people acting for them from entering or interfering with Gorse Hill, directed them to leave, and required delivery of keys, alarm codes and other access devices to receiver Tom Kavanagh. The orders also restrained obstruction of the receiver.
The couple argued, among other things, that the High Court judge should have recused himself, that they had not been given enough time to respond, and that the case should not have been admitted to the Commercial List. They also challenged the injunction and the refusal to allow cross-examination of two people who had sworn affidavits.
The Court of Appeal rejected those challenges. It found no reasonable apprehension of bias on the facts, and said the short timetable and refusal of an adjournment had not breached fair procedures. It also upheld the Commercial List admission and the refusal of cross-examination, which the High Court considered unnecessary to decide the interlocutory application.
On the injunction, the appeal court held that the central relief—requiring the couple to leave—was mandatory in substance. The respondents therefore had to show a strong case that they were likely to obtain that relief at trial, rather than only a fair issue to be tried. The court concluded that they had met that threshold, referring to earlier court determinations concerning the security over Gorse Hill, the receiver’s appointment and the couple’s asserted right to reside there.
The court emphasised that these were provisional conclusions for the injunction application, not final determinations of the underlying dispute. It upheld the High Court’s view that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the respondents and that the balance of convenience favoured the orders. It noted that the O’Donnells had been living in England since late 2011 and that Gorse Hill was owned by Vico Ltd., which had given it as security for substantial borrowing.
The court dismissed the appeal against all the High Court orders. It said it would hear the parties about any variation needed because stays on the High Court order had remained in place until the appeal judgment.