Bank entitled to vacant possession of substantial property in Killiney in order to enforce judgment in excess of €71 million

Application for interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing, interfering with, entering upon or otherwise attending at the property known as Gorse Hill, Vico Road, Killiney, Co. Dublin - plaintiffs also seek interlocutory relief by way of an order compelling the defendants to vacate the said lands and properties - plaintiffs seek further interlocutory injunction relief restraining the defendants from impeding or obstructing the second named plaintiff (“the receiver”) in securing the property or from impeding, interfering with or obstructing him in attempting to secure and deal with the property - plaintiffs also seek an order directing the defendants to vacate the property and to deliver up to the receiver forthwith any keys, alarm codes and/or other security and access devices and equipment in respect of the property - plaintiffs seek an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the functions and office of the second named plaintiff as receiver of the property - defendants rely on correspondence with the trustees of the settlement and in particular, a letter of 18th July, 2012, from Mr. David A. Harris and to a letter of wishes dated 20th October, 2000 to the trustees of the settlement as giving them a right of residence which can only be determined by least two calendar years notice - defendants also raise a number of points about the formal requirements relating to the loan and security documents not being complied with - their claim to a right of residence clearly rests on the correspondence with the trustees of the settlement - whether defendants should have been allowed more time to file an affidavit - no information canvassed by the plaintiffs in their affidavits which was not known to the defendants for a long time - defendants’ complaint that they were given insufficient time to furnish a replying affidavit for the purpose of this interlocutory injunction rejected - Campus Oil test to be applied on a motion for interlocutory relief - whether a fair bona fide question has been raised by the person seeking the relief - court must then go on to consider the balance of convenience and preservation of the status quo - plaintiffs will be required to give an undertaking as to damages - defendants are not the owners of the property - Gorse Hill is owned by Vico Limited - defendants reside in the United Kingdom - on 1st June, 2006, Gorse Hill was offered by Vico Limited as security for the indebtedness of the defendants and companies related to them - by the settlement of 4th March, 2011, the defendants agreed that in the event that the first named plaintiff exercised its security that they would immediately provide vacant possession of the property and cooperate with the first named plaintiff in relation to any sale or disposal of the property - on 12th December, 2011, the first named plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants in the sum of €71,575,991.29 and costs - second plaintiff was appointed by a deed of appointment dated 7th June, 2012 - this court and the Supreme Court have held that the mortgages and charges are valid and enforceable - defendants seek to raise issues surrounding the appointment of the receiver and the efficacy of the loan and security documents - If they wished to attack the security documents and the settlement agreement which they entered into, this will have to be done at the plenary hearing - in the meantime these documents can be relied on by the plaintiffs and represent the status quo which can only be protected by granting the interlocutory injunction sought - defendants are, prima facie, trespassing on the property at Gorse Hill - appears that defendants only returned to Gorse Hill in order to frustrate the attempts of the plaintiffs to take possession of the property which was charged to secure very substantial debts incurred by them and companies related to them - balance of convenience favours the granting of the interlocutory relief sought - plaintiffs have a judgment in excess of €71m against the defendants and can only exercise their powers on foot of mortgages and charges against the property if they have vacant possession of the property - damages would not be an adequate remedy in this case - order granting injunctions.