Appellants’ case against receiver was not an abuse of process

Murray J (nem diss): Appeal of a decision striking out the proceedings against the respondents and refusing the appellants' application for interlocutory relief - the fourth respondent was appointed as a receiver and he commenced a separate action against the appellants seeking possession of secured properties - the appellants brought these separate proceedings by way of plenary summons - no statement of claim was delivered by the appellants - the appellants issued a Notice of Motion seeking injunctive relief against the first and fourth respondents - motions seeking to strike out the proceedings were brought by the second to fifth respondents - all the motions were listed together - the appellants did not appear in court on the day that they were listed due to medical issues on behalf of the second appellant - the matter was adjourned for a week and the trial judge took the papers and considered them - the appellants did not attend court on the next occasion and the trial judge proceeded with the hearing - whether the trial judge erred in granting the respondents’ applications to strike out the proceedings in the absence of statement of claim - the court was entitled to proceed to consider the application, and it was entitled to take account of the fact that the plaintiffs did not deliver a statement of claim - whether the trial judge erred in proceeding in the absence of the plaintiffs - the appellants failed to offer any basis on which the Court could or should interfere with the balance struck by the trial judge - whether the trial judge was correct to strike out the actions against the receiver and the fund - Henderson v Henderson - whether the Plaintiffs raised a fair and legal argument which met the required legal test to advance to full Plenary trial - the trial judge was correct to strike out the proceedings against the solicitor representing the receiver - the trial judge was correct to strike out the proceedings against the Bank - the application against the Property Registration Authority should not have been dismissed at that point - Court noted that the respondents would remain free to bring an application to dismiss the proceedings should it wish to do so following the delivery of a statement of claim - the trial judge was correct that it was inappropriate to grant the interlocutory relief sought - the balance of convenience against granting the interlocutory relief - appeal allowed in part - Court gives an unless order extending time for the delivery of the statement of claim as against the first, second and fourth respondent by 8 weeks - Court upholds decision to strike out proceedings against the other respondents and to refuse application for injunctive relief.