McKenna v Pepper Finacne Corporation (Ireland) DAC & Anor (Approved) (Rev1) [2023] IEHC 564 (09 October 2023)

McKenna v Pepper Finacne Corporation (Ireland) DAC & Anor (Approved) (Rev1) [2023] IEHC 564 (09 October 2023)

The plaintiff failed to establish a fair question to be tried on any issue, as the assignments and notices were valid or, even if not, the distinction between legal and equitable assignment is academic for debts; the receiver's appointment and novation were lawful; damages would be an adequate remedy; the plaintiff delayed excessively; and his undertaking as to damages was illusory.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 564
Parties
Plaintiff: Kieran McKenna; First Defendant: Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC; Second Defendant (receiver): Ken Fennell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / High Court Judgment on Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Notice Requirements, Receivership, Equitable Vs Legal Assignment, Injunctions, Delay in Seeking Relief, Adequacy of Damages
Property Law Banking Law Equity Civil Procedure Assignment of Debt Notice Requirements Receivership Equitable Vs Legal Assignment +3 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kieran McKenna

Plaintiff

Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC

First Defendant

Ken Fennell

Second Defendant (receiver)

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / High Court Judgment on Application for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the sale of mortgaged property by the receiver
  2. 2 Whether the assignments of the loan and mortgage were valid and properly notified
  3. 3 Whether the receiver's appointment and novation were lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish a fair question to be tried on any issue, as the assignments and notices were valid or, even if not, the distinction between legal and equitable assignment is academic for debts; the receiver's appointment and novation were lawful; damages would be an adequate remedy; the plaintiff delayed excessively; and his undertaking as to damages was illusory.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • Refusal of interlocutory injunction restraining the sale or completion of sale of the property by the receiver