Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Receiver of property not required to carry out repairs
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring that receiver appointed over property repair premises, where the receiver claimed that: a) he was receiver of rents only; b) that the property had been uninhabitable at the time of his appointment; and c) that he had resigned as receiver; and that the plaintiff had been unable to show a likelihood of success at final hearing.
Application by lay litigant - claim for order that defendant repair property - claim for order quashing the appointment of defendant as receiver over property - alleged negligence in execution of duties as receiver - previous ex parte applications and notices of motion - appointment of receiver in April 2011 - claim that property was in a state of dereliction and a danger to the public - break-ins to property - property let to tenants at time of receivership - averment by receiver that he was "rent receiver" only - property alleged to have been uninhabitable at time of appointment - claim that receiver had resigned in April 2012 - relief sought by plaintiff in nature of interlocutory mandatory injunction - likelihood of success at final hearing of action - whether damages an adequate remedy - balance of convenience.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
