Coyle v Everyday Finance Designated Activity Company [Trading as Link Financial] & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 666 (28 November 2025)

Coyle v Everyday Finance Designated Activity Company [Trading as Link Financial] & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 666 (28 November 2025)

Plaintiff is not a consumer under EU law due to express warranty in mortgage contract and benefit of legal advice; damages are an adequate remedy; plaintiff failed to give valid undertaking as to damages; balance of justice favours refusal of interlocutory injunction.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 666
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Coyle; First Defendant: Everyday Finance Designated Activity Company [Trading as Link Financial]; Second Defendant: John Boland; Third Defendant: BIDX1 Ireland Limited; Fourth Defendant: Tailte Eireann; Fifth Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Mortgage Assignment, Adequacy of Damages, Consumer Status Under EU Law, Undertaking as to Damages, Balance of Convenience, Interlocutory Injunctions
Property Law Equity Consumer Protection Contract Law Mortgage Assignment Adequacy of Damages Consumer Status Under EU Law Undertaking as to Damages +2 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Coyle

Plaintiff

Everyday Finance Designated Activity Company [Trading as Link Financial]

First Defendant

John Boland

Second Defendant

BIDX1 Ireland Limited

Third Defendant

Tailte Eireann

Fourth Defendant

The Attorney General

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief restraining possession or sale of mortgaged property
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is a consumer under EU law
  3. 3 Adequacy of damages as a remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff is not a consumer under EU law due to express warranty in mortgage contract and benefit of legal advice; damages are an adequate remedy; plaintiff failed to give valid undertaking as to damages; balance of justice favours refusal of interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction restraining possession or sale of property is denied