McCarthy -v- Murphy [2016] IEHC 391 (08 July 2016)

McCarthy -v- Murphy [2016] IEHC 391 (08 July 2016)

The plaintiff established a clear and strong prima facie case that his appointment as receiver was valid under the mortgage terms, the deed of appointment was sufficiently certain and properly executed, and the bank retained enforcement rights. The defendant's technical objections and unsubstantiated claims of assignment or securitisation did not displace the plaintiff's entitlement to interlocutory relief. The application to cross-examine was refused as unnecessary to resolve the interlocutory motion.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 391
Parties
Plaintiff: Shane McCarthy; Defendant: Seamus Murphy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Injunctions and Cross Examination)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted; application to cross-examine refused.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Mortgage Enforcement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Company Law Formalities, Assignment of Debt, Securitisation
Property Law Banking Law Insolvency Law Receivership Mortgage Enforcement Interlocutory Injunctions Company Law Formalities Assignment of Debt +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane McCarthy

Plaintiff

Seamus Murphy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Injunctions and Cross Examination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was validly appointed as receiver over the mortgaged property
  2. 2 Whether the deed of appointment is void for uncertainty or improper execution
  3. 3 Whether the receivership covers all relevant property units

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established a clear and strong prima facie case that his appointment as receiver was valid under the mortgage terms, the deed of appointment was sufficiently certain and properly executed, and the bank retained enforcement rights. The defendant's technical objections and unsubstantiated claims of assignment or securitisation did not displace the plaintiff's entitlement to interlocutory relief. The application to cross-examine was refused as unnecessary to resolve the interlocutory motion.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted; application to cross-examine refused.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from impeding or obstructing the plaintiff from taking possession of the receivership property (limited to two units wholly within Folio 22202F)
  • Defendant restrained from interfering with the office or functions of the plaintiff as receiver of the property (two units)