Injunction granted where a fair issue to be tried over a receiver’s powers were established

Injunctions – seeking to restrain receiver from taking possession of property and/or acting as receiver and/or restricting the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the property – background facts – appointment of the receiver – correspondence – proceedings issued – substitution of fund for bank - legal principles - whether there is a fair or serious or bona fide question to be tried - the mortgage in this case does not expressly confer any powers on a receiver appointed under the mortgage and does not appear to delegate or provide for the delegation of any of the mortgagee’s powers to the receiver - Defendants’ powers as receivers are only those which are set out in Conveyancing Act, 1881 or its successor post 2009, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 - Defendants appear to acknowledge that they have not been expressly conferred with the powers to take control of and to manage the property but contend that they must have these as ancillary to, or supportive of, the power to receive or collect rents or profits - argument which will have to be fully ventilated at the trial - there is therefore a fair question to be tried that the Defendants only have those powers conferred on them by the Conveyancing Acts which in the circumstances of this case are the powers to receive the income to which the appointment relates (rent-receiver) and to give effectual receipts for such income - Plaintiff has established a fair question that the Defendants were claiming or threatening to exercise powers which they do not possess - Plaintiff has established a fair question that the Defendants, in asserting that the property was under their control and asserting an entitlement to all powers of management, were purporting and therefore threatening to exercise powers over the Plaintiff’s lands which they did not possess under the Deed of Appointment or the mortgage – wrongful appointment of receivers - whether the appointment of the receivers is an abuse of process as an attempt to short-circuit the litigation in circumstances where some of the litigation is concerned with the same underlying debt and the same lands - Global Deed of Transfer – no substitution application - whether the judgment in favour of AIB (no substitution application having been made) means that it is no longer a debt under the mortgage and can therefore not ground the appointment of receivers by the fund - arrangements pending trial - balance of convenience - adequacy of damages – judgment against the plaintiff remains unsatisfied - has not disputed the judgment debt - has lodged €130,000 with his solicitor, which they continue to retain, and had €80,000 available to put with the €130,000 - balance of justice could only favour the grant of the relief sought if these monies were applied towards the discharge of the judgment –