Equitable Duty of Diligence: Discharge of Prolonged Interlocutory Injunction Against Receiver’s Inaction

Introduction

Tweedswood Ltd & anor v Power (Approved) [2025] IESC 18 is a Supreme Court of Ireland decision delivered on 13 May 2025 by Hogan J., with the concurrence of O'Donnell C.J., O’Malley J., Woulfe J. and Murray J. The appeal concerned an interlocutory order made in May 2009 granting possession of a derelict town‐centre property in Wexford to a court‐appointed receiver, Tom Kavanagh, acting for a debt‐holding bank. Over fifteen years later the property remained unused, was entered on the register of derelict sites, and had deteriorated in value. The key issues were whether the interlocutory injunction should be continued in light of the receiver’s prolonged inaction and what equitable principles govern a receiver’s duty to progress litigation and protect public interest.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the defendant/appellant Martin Power’s appeal and discharged the interlocutory injunction that had granted the receiver possession since 2009. While affirming the legal correctness of the original High Court order, the Court held that the extraordinary delay and lack of action by the receiver disentitled him from maintaining equitable relief. Three principal grounds were given:

1. Unreasonable delay in prosecuting the litigation over fifteen years.
2. Failure to honour or to notify change of the receiver’s initial undertaking to sell or let the property.
3. Public interest prejudice arising from allowing a central property to fall into dereliction.

The Court emphasized that interlocutory relief is temporary and subject to an ongoing duty of diligence. It clarified that discharging the injunction does not determine substantive mortgage rights or bar the receiver from making fresh applications for appropriate relief in the High Court.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Charleton v Scriven [2019] IESC 28
  Clarke C.J. stressed that beneficiaries of interlocutory injunctions must progress their case “with reasonable expedition,” and that failure to do so may warrant reconsideration of temporary orders intended merely as “stepping stones” to trial.
• Taite v Beades [2019] IESC 92
  Irvine J. characterized interlocutory injunctions as procedural devices, not substitutes for summary judgment, reinforcing that prolonged inaction converts them into de facto final relief.
• Dekra Éireann Teo v Minister for Environment [2003] 2 IR 270
  Fennelly J. underscored that commercial litigation demands prompt resolution, especially where a contested asset is at issue.
• Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Homan [1986] 1 WLR 1301
  The receiver’s primary duty to the mortgagee was noted, but Hogan J. held that courts may nonetheless consider wider public interests when granting interlocutory relief.

2. Legal Reasoning

Hogan J.’s reasoning unfolded in three strands:

1. Dominus Litis and Duty to Act: A party obtaining equitable interlocutory relief must advance the proceedings diligently. The receiver, as “dominus litis,” had professional responsibility and resources to progress the case but allowed it to stagnate.
2. Equitable Undertakings: Although the Court did not find a formal undertaking, the receiver’s clear statements in 2010 that he would renovate and sell or lease the property created expectations which he never fulfilled or revoked in Court.
3. Public Interest Considerations: The Court held that the public interest in preventing urban dereliction can qualify the scope of interlocutory relief in addition to private mortgage rights.

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision establishes an important precedent:

• Interlocutory injunctions cannot be treated as indefinite holders of property rights; they are conditional on ongoing equitable conduct.
• Receivers and other litigants are under a continuing duty to keep courts informed of material changes in strategy or intentions affecting the relief obtained.
• Court awareness of public interest factors, such as urban health and dereliction, may influence interlocutory relief in property and commercial contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interlocutory Injunction

A temporary court order designed to preserve the status quo pending a full trial. It is not a final decision on the merits.

Dominus Litis

The party who is in control of litigation. They bear ultimate responsibility for advancing the case.

Equitable Undertaking

A promise made by a party to a court regarding future conduct, which can underpin the grant of equitable relief.

Public Interest

The welfare or well-being of the general public, which courts may weigh alongside private parties’ rights in granting or continuing relief.

Conclusion

Tweedswood Ltd & anor v Power crystallizes a new equitable principle: interlocutory relief will be discharged if the beneficiary permits excessive delay, fails to honour or communicate undertakings, and prejudices the broader public interest. The ruling serves as a stern reminder that courts will not countenance “permanent” interlocutory orders born of litigation inertia, especially when decaying assets harm communities. Receivers and litigants must therefore act diligently, transparently, and in good faith, or risk losing the very remedies they have obtained.