Gibb -v- Promontoria (Aran) Ltd & ors [2016] IEHC 521 (12 July 2016)

Gibb -v- Promontoria (Aran) Ltd & ors [2016] IEHC 521 (12 July 2016)

The Court refused the interlocutory injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, the assignment of debt to Promontoria (Aran) Limited was valid with proper notice, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the assignment and equities were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 521
Parties
Plaintiff: Clare Gibb; Defendant: Promontoria (Aran) Limited; Defendant: Brendan Hanratty; Defendant: Declan Taite
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Injunction Pending Trial)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Receivership, Interlocutory Injunctions, Interest Rate Swaps, Set Off and Equities, Notice of Assignment
Banking Law Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Assignment of Debt Receivership Interlocutory Injunctions Interest Rate Swaps +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clare Gibb

Plaintiff

Promontoria (Aran) Limited

Defendant

Brendan Hanratty

Defendant

Declan Taite

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Injunction Pending Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the properties pending determination of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the assignment of debt from Ulster Bank to Promontoria (Aran) Limited was valid and subject to pre-existing equities
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the interlocutory injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, the assignment of debt to Promontoria (Aran) Limited was valid with proper notice, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the assignment and equities were not sufficiently strong to justify injunctive relief at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory injunction refused
  • Liberty to the plaintiff to deliver a Statement of Claim and to plead during the long vacation