Mortgagor ordered to vacate properties where proceedings against receiver are bound to fail

Receivers – application for possession of mortgaged properties – application to have mortgagor's claim struck out on the grounds that they are frivolous and vexatious; disclose no reasonable cause of action; are an abuse of process and/or are bound to fail - two mortgages - purpose of the second mortgage was to provide financing for the construction of houses – bank re-registered as a public company and changed its name – mortgagor sought to challenge the validity of the mortgages - fell into arrears on both loans - letters of demand were issued - receiver appointed over both - initially compliant with the receivership - became less compliant - asserted that the receiver had no right of access to sites 2 and 5 - Property Registration Authority also expressed doubt as to the receiver’s rights to grant easements over the borrower’s property – further deed of appointment relying on wider charge - Registrar of the Property Registration Authority expressed the view that this was sufficient to enable the receiver grant easements over the balance of the lands - more than three years after he had ceded possession of the property to the receiver, began to assert ownership of the property by demanding that the tenants pay rent to him rather than to the receiver – acts of interference – he issued High Court plenary proceedings against a total of fifteen defendants including the receiver, members of his staff, staff members of the bank, and tenants of the properties – seeking a declaration that the charges held by the bank on the properties are null and void; an order setting aside the appointment of the receiver and damages of €10 million for trespass – receiver informed that furniture appeared to have been moved into No 2 and activity was noticed outside No. 5 in relation to a potential occupancy of the property - receiver instituted proceedings by way of plenary summons seeking possession of the properties – issued a motion for injunctive relief – mortgagor issued two further sets of proceedings against a number of defendants – seeking rental monies and damages for assault against twenty two defendants – test for injunctive relief – mortgagor ordered to deliver up vacant possession and ordered to restrain from interfering with the property the subject matter of the first mortgage – in relation to the second mortgage, the question is more complex – the subject lands are landlocked and potentially hindered in the absence of a right of way - not an issue amenable to resolution on an interlocutory application - not satisfied that the receiver has demonstrated a strong case likely to succeed at a full hearing such as to persuade the Court to grant him all of the interlocutory relief which he seeks on this application - balance of convenience suggests that the uncertainty over the issue of access makes the properties virtually unsaleable until such time as that issue has been resolved - entitlement to possession of Nos. 2 and 5 is clear his right to grant easements to allow access to those properties has yet to be determined - injunction restraining the mortgagor from interfering with receiver’s possession - jurisdiction to strike out proceedings - Court has a duty to ensure that the Court’s resources are efficiently utilised and the issuing of multiple proceedings relating to the same transactions does not constitute an efficient use of the Court’s resources - Court dismissed proceedings challenging the appointment of receiver on the grounds that they are bound to fail - in his defence to the receiver’s proceedings can put the receiver on full proof of his appointment and can counterclaim for any monies owed in the event that such a defence is successful – claim for rent unnecessary and an inefficient use of the Court’s time - in order to avoid a multiplicity of actions and to maximise the efficient utilisation of the Court’s resources, the Court proposes to dismiss proceedings - not entirely dependent on the outcome of the receiver’s claim for possession of the property – claim for damages for assault not entirely dependent on the outcome of the receiver’s claim for possession of the property not entirely dependent on the outcome of the receiver’s claim for possession of the property - alleged use of ‘excessive force’ - none of the proposed defendants to the proceedings was involved in any alleged assault – in order to succeed against them, not only must he establish the use of excessive force, he must also establish that they are vicariously liable for the actions of the alleged perpetrator – Court stayed the assault proceedings pending further submissions on the issue of vicarious liability.