Everyday Finance DAC & Ors v Gleeson & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 130 (08 June 2022)

Everyday Finance DAC & Ors v Gleeson & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 130 (08 June 2022)

The Court of Appeal held that the relief sought was mandatory in nature and thus the plaintiffs had to meet the 'strong case' threshold. The Court found that the plaintiffs had a strong case as to their title to the charge, based on the conclusiveness of the Land Registry folio, but had only a fair issue to be tried regarding the validity of the receivers' appointment due to errors in the appointment documentation. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the higher threshold required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction for vacant possession and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court order for possession pending trial.

Citation
[2022] IECA 130
Parties
Second Defendant/appellant: Jane Gleeson; First Plaintiff/respondent: Everyday Finance DAC; Second Plaintiff/respondent: Stephen Tennant; Third Plaintiff/respondent: Nicholas O’Dwyer; First Defendant/notice Party: Paul White; Notice Parties: Persons occupying 96 Avoca Park Co. Dublin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Injunction Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Enforcement, Appointment of Receivers, Validity of Security Instruments, Interlocutory Injunctions, Registration of Title, Mandatory Injunctions, Redemption of Mortgage, Rectification of Register
Property Law Banking Law Equity Civil Procedure Mortgage Enforcement Appointment of Receivers Validity of Security Instruments Interlocutory Injunctions +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Gleeson

Second Defendant/appellant

Everyday Finance DAC

First Plaintiff/respondent

Stephen Tennant

Second Plaintiff/respondent

Nicholas O’Dwyer

Third Plaintiff/respondent

Paul White

First Defendant/notice Party

Persons occupying 96 Avoca Park Co. Dublin

Notice Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether errors in security and appointment documents invalidate the appointment of receivers and the enforcement of the mortgage
  2. 2 Whether the 1998 mortgage continued as security for the 2008 loan against the second defendant's interest
  3. 3 Whether the standard for interlocutory mandatory injunctions was met

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the relief sought was mandatory in nature and thus the plaintiffs had to meet the 'strong case' threshold. The Court found that the plaintiffs had a strong case as to their title to the charge, based on the conclusiveness of the Land Registry folio, but had only a fair issue to be tried regarding the validity of the receivers' appointment due to errors in the appointment documentation. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the higher threshold required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction for vacant possession and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court order for possession pending trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court order for possession set aside
  • No order for vacant possession pending trial