Charleton & anor v Scriven [2019] IESC 28 (08 May 2019)

Charleton & anor v Scriven [2019] IESC 28 (08 May 2019)

The interlocutory relief preserving the payment of rent to the receivers is essentially prohibitory in character, and as there is at least a fair issue to be tried regarding the validity of the receivers' appointment, and the balance of convenience favours the receivers, such relief should be upheld. Reliefs of a mandatory character, such as those permitting sale or requiring delivery of possession, require a stronger case and are not appropriate absent a full trial.

Citation
[2019] IESC 28
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Luke Charleton; Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Cotter; Defendant/appellant: Gerard Scriven
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction upheld in part; relief limited to prohibiting interference with receivers' collection of rent; further submissions to be heard on precise form of order.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Interlocutory Injunctions, Mortgage Enforcement, Balance of Convenience, Validity of Appointment of Receivers
Property Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Receivership Interlocutory Injunctions Mortgage Enforcement Balance of Convenience Validity of Appointment of Receivers

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Charleton

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Cotter

Plaintiff/respondent

Gerard Scriven

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the receivers as 'receivers' rather than 'receivers and managers' was valid under the mortgage deeds
  2. 2 What standard applies for granting interlocutory injunctions in this context—mandatory or prohibitory
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory relief preserving the payment of rent to the receivers is essentially prohibitory in character, and as there is at least a fair issue to be tried regarding the validity of the receivers' appointment, and the balance of convenience favours the receivers, such relief should be upheld. Reliefs of a mandatory character, such as those permitting sale or requiring delivery of possession, require a stronger case and are not appropriate absent a full trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction upheld in part; relief limited to prohibiting interference with receivers' collection of rent; further submissions to be heard on precise form of order.

Orders

  • Relief to ensure rents are paid to receivers without interference by Mr. Scriven upheld.
  • Ancillary or mandatory relief (e.g., permitting sale or requiring delivery of possession) not granted pending full trial.