Supreme Court dismisses appeal against possession order following valid appointment of receiver over mortgaged assets.

THE SUPREME COURT

[Appeal No. 40/2014]

Laffoy J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

BETWEEN

PAUL McCANN

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

AND

PATRICK HALPIN AND ANN KEANE

DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

Judgment of Ms. Justice Laffoy delivered on the 11th day of March, 2016

1. This appeal is against an order of the High Court (Peart J.), which as originally perfected on 23rd December, 2013, was erroneously

dated 17th October, 2013. That error was corrected by order of the High Court dated 16th January, 2014 in which it was ordered

that the date of the order be amended to 17th December, 2013 in lieu of 17th October, 2013. The amended order will be referred to

hereafter as “the Possession Order”.

2. The Possession Order was made in proceedings which had been initiated in the High Court by special summons (Record No.

2012/379SP), which issued on 13th July, 2012 and in which the plaintiff/respondent (the Receiver), in his capacity as receiver

appointed by Irish Bank of Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC) by deed of appointment dated 17th February, 2012, sought an order

against the defendants/appellants (the Appellants) pursuant to Order 54, rule 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts for possession of

the lands and premises described in the first schedule thereto, being the premises known as and situate at Nos. 53 and 55 Park

Avenue, Sandymount in the City of Dublin and which were otherwise described in the first schedule as the premises known as

Aberdeen Lodge, 53/55 Park Avenue, Sandymount in the City of Dublin. Those premises had been mortgaged and charged by Elektron

Holdings Limited to Irish Nationwide Building Society (now IBRC) pursuant to, inter alia, a Deed of Mortgage dated 9th October, 1998.

3. As the Possession Order discloses, the special summons proceedings were listed before the High Court on 25th September, 2013

together with related proceedings under s. 316 of the Companies Act 1963 proceedings (Record No. 2012 No. 411 COS) between the

Receiver, as applicant, and the Appellants, as respondents (the s. 316 Proceedings).

4. Judgment was delivered by the High Court (Peart J.) in the s. 316 proceedings on 8th November, 2013. In the judgment it was

held, inter alia, that the Receiver had been validly appointed receiver over the assets of Elektron Holdings Limited. Consequential on

that finding and a declaration to that effect, in the Possession Order it was ordered that possession be granted to the Receiver of the

premises described in the first schedule to the special summons and in the first schedule to the Possession Order against the

Appellants and also against Elektron Holdings Limited, which, by order of the High Court, had been joined as a defendant, as is

recorded in the Possession Order.

5. The Appellants appealed against the order of the High Court in the s. 316 proceedings and against the Possession Order in the

special summons proceedings. Both appeals were heard together.

6. This Court having on this day dismissed the appeal of the Appellants against the order made in the s. 316 proceedings and having

found that the Receiver was validly appointed as Receiver over the assets of Elektron Holdings Limited, it follows that this appeal

against the Possession Order must also be dismissed.