O'Neill v O'Connor [2018] IEHC 709 (11 December 2018)

O'Neill v O'Connor [2018] IEHC 709 (11 December 2018)

The plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove the validity of his appointment as receiver over the Muckross property and did not establish a prima facie entitlement to interlocutory relief; there was insufficient evidence of wrongful withholding of possession or interference by the defendant, and no evidence that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 709
Parties
Plaintiff: Karl O'Neill; Defendant: Sinead O'Connor
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings (injunctive Relief) / Interlocutory Application for Injunctions; Determination of Multiple Motions
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory relief refused; defendant's motions refused.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Receiver, Validity of Mortgage Assignment, Interlocutory Injunctions, Locus Standi, Discovery, Summary Dismissal
Property Law Banking and Finance Law Civil Procedure Appointment of Receiver Validity of Mortgage Assignment Interlocutory Injunctions Locus Standi Discovery +1 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl O'Neill

Plaintiff

Sinead O'Connor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings (injunctive Relief) / Interlocutory Application for Injunctions; Determination of Multiple Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie entitlement to interlocutory relief regarding possession of the Muckross property
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's appointment as receiver was validly established
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's motions for summary dismissal, joinder, preliminary issues, and discovery should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove the validity of his appointment as receiver over the Muckross property and did not establish a prima facie entitlement to interlocutory relief; there was insufficient evidence of wrongful withholding of possession or interference by the defendant, and no evidence that damages would not be an adequate remedy.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory relief refused; defendant's motions refused.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunctions in respect of the Muckross property is refused.
  • Defendant's motions for summary dismissal, joinder of parties, preliminary issues, and discovery are refused.