Mortgagors restrained from interfering with entitlement to possession of property

Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory relief against the first and second defendants restraining interference by them or either of them with the plaintiff’s entitlement to possession of premises - plaintiff claims to be a mortgagee in possession of the premises and has sought a declaration to that effect in the underlying proceedings - second and third defendants mortgaged premises to financial institution in 2003 and 2004 as security for loans - mortgage fell into arrears and financial institution issued a civil bill for possession of the property in 2012 - in July 2014, a consent order for possession issued from the Circuit Court with a stay of execution for a period of 12 months - purpose of the stay was to allow the second and third defendants effect a voluntary sale of the property which was their family home - second financial institution registered judgment mortgage on the second defendants interest in the sum of over €1.38 million - this judgment mortgage was in respect of a judgment of October 2012 obtained by this second financial institution against the third named defendant - the impediment presented by the second financial instution's judgment mortgage was not resolved and as the period of the stay of execution elapsed, the second and third defendants, with the benefit of legal advice, entered into a deed of surrender of vacant possession - plaintiff took over loan book of first financial institution - plaintiff then took physical possession of the property in August 2015 - in February 2016, a man was noted to be residing in the property - Court is satisfied it was the second named defendant and that his presence there constitutes a trespass - first defendant sent an email to the plaintiff in May 2016 stating that he was unwell and no longer had an interest in the case - serious issue to be tried - balance of convenience weighs heavily in favour of granting an injunction.