High Court refuses injunction restraining defendants from interfering with residential investment properties, on the grounds that defendants raised arguments about the potential overcharging of interest, meaning that the account was not in arrears and that the receiver was therefore not validly appointed; but the court grants orders allowing the receiver to collect rents pending the trial.
Injunctions – seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the properties - borrowed in excess of €2.2 million from the Bank’s predecessor entity - Loan Agreements and the Bank’s entitlement to appoint a receiver under the mortgage documentation - potential defences – whether there was a valid demand and were the defendants in default prior to the appointment of the receiver - significant overcharging of interest by the Bank - whether, at the date of the receiver’s appointment, the defendants were in arrears under their facilities - European Central Bank’s main refinancing operations Minimum Bid Rate – delay by the plaintiff – explanation for delay – clean hands - balance of convenience and damages - residential investment properties which are occupied by various tenants - satisfied that the defendants have raised some arguments which have the potential to call into question the validity of the appointment of the plaintiff as receiver - permit the plaintiff to collect the rent or other income of the Properties pending the trial of these proceedings -