Charleton & anor -v- Scriven [2014] IEHC 415 (22 August 2014)

Charleton & anor -v- Scriven [2014] IEHC 415 (22 August 2014)

The plaintiffs established a clear and strong prima facie case for the validity of their appointment as receivers and their entitlement to possession and control of the mortgaged properties. The defendant's technical objections to the deed of appointment, the bank's entitlement, and the effect of securitisation or cross-border merger were insufficient to defeat the application. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunctions sought.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 415
Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Charleton; Plaintiff: Michael Cotter; Defendant: Gerard Scriven
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Injunction Pending Trial)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the plaintiffs' notice of motion.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Mortgage Enforcement, Appointment of Receivers, Interlocutory Injunctions, Securitisation, Cross Border Mergers
Property Law Banking Law Insolvency Law Receivership Mortgage Enforcement Appointment of Receivers Interlocutory Injunctions Securitisation +1 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Charleton

Plaintiff

Michael Cotter

Plaintiff

Gerard Scriven

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the plaintiffs as receivers over the defendant's mortgaged properties was valid
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendant from interfering with the receivership and requiring delivery up of possession
  3. 3 Whether technical objections to the form of the deed of appointment or the bank's entitlement to enforce the mortgages are sufficient to defeat the application

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established a clear and strong prima facie case for the validity of their appointment as receivers and their entitlement to possession and control of the mortgaged properties. The defendant's technical objections to the deed of appointment, the bank's entitlement, and the effect of securitisation or cross-border merger were insufficient to defeat the application. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunctions sought.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the plaintiffs' notice of motion.

Orders

  • Defendant to deliver up physical possession of each mortgaged property to the receivers.
  • Defendant to deliver up all rights, title, benefit, and interest in each occupied mortgaged property.