Houlihan & Anor v AIB PLC & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application brought by the Plaintiff, supported by the second plaintiff, for urgent interlocutory injunctive relief to prevent the Defendants from selling a farm. The application was heard on 13 September 2024, during which the first and second Defendants were removed from the application. A public auction was scheduled for 20 September 2024. Previous court orders restrained the Defendants from accepting any online offers for the lands pending further order.

The Plaintiffs are a mother and son. The Plaintiff and his wife jointly own the farm that is the subject of these proceedings (the "farm"). They also own a separate nearby farm where they reside. The second Plaintiff resides on the farm under a claimed life interest. Initially, the house where the second Plaintiff resides was included in the sale advertisement, but it was removed on 6 September 2024. The ninth Defendant, acting as receiver on behalf of several Defendants, confirmed in affidavit that the house is excluded from the sale and undertook not to market or sell it pending determination of the proceedings.

The timing of the notification regarding the exclusion of the second Plaintiff's house and the receiver's undertaking may be relevant to costs in these interlocutory proceedings. This exclusion addressed a significant concern raised by the Plaintiff in his affidavit sworn on 27 August 2024.

The Plaintiff identified three remaining grounds for seeking an injunction to restrain the sale of the property:

1. Non-receipt of "hello" and "goodbye" letters, which the Plaintiff claims renders the transfer of his original loan from Company A to the first Defendant null and void.
2. Alleged flaws in the instrument appointing the receiver, specifically that it refers to the receiver as the Plaintiff's agent without his consent.
3. Dispute over the validity of the 2004 mortgage.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's non-receipt of the "hello" and "goodbye" letters invalidates the transfer of the original loan.
2. Whether the appointment of the receiver is flawed due to the receiver being described as the Plaintiff's agent without consent.
3. Whether there is a fair question to be tried regarding the validity of the 2004 mortgage and the Defendants' entitlement to rely on the facility letter of 2011.
4. Whether the balance of convenience favors granting or refusing the interlocutory injunction to restrain the sale of the farm.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff asserts he never received the "hello" or "goodbye" letters, which he contends invalidates the loan transfer.
• The Plaintiff claims the instrument appointing the receiver is flawed because it refers to the receiver as his agent, a status he denies consenting to.
• The Plaintiff disputes the validity of the 2004 mortgage, denying he signed the mortgage document and alleging fraud regarding the signatures.
• The Plaintiff contends that the mortgage should have been over a different farm, not the farm subject to this sale, despite acknowledging the 2011 facility letter secured this farm.
• The Plaintiff relied on a prior decision concerning unregistered land to argue against the Defendants' position.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants provided copies of the "hello" and "goodbye" letters and other correspondence sent by ordinary prepaid post, which the Plaintiff received before initiating the application.
• The Defendants argued that the reference to the receiver as the mortgagor's agent in the appointment instrument is a standard legal clause, uncontested beyond the Plaintiff’s denial of consent.
• The Defendants exhibited the 2004 mortgage document, asserting it is valid and that the Plaintiff's signatures, witnessed by a solicitor, are genuine.
• The Defendants rely on the 2011 facility letter, signed by the Plaintiff and his wife, which clearly secures the loan against the farm in question.
• The Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff’s reliance on a decision related to unregistered land was misplaced because the land here is registered.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
English v. Promontoria [2016] IEHC 662	Distinction between registered and unregistered land; registered land title is conclusive.	The court held that the precedent was inapplicable as it concerned unregistered land, whereas the land in the current case is registered. The Plaintiff's reliance on this case was therefore misplaced.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed each ground raised by the Plaintiff. Regarding the "hello" and "goodbye" letters, the Court found that the Plaintiff had received copies of these and other correspondence prior to the application, sent by the method provided in the facility letter, and no evidence suggested an incorrect address. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not establish a fair question to be tried on this ground.

On the receiver's appointment, the Court noted that describing the receiver as the mortgagor's agent is a standard legal clause, and the Plaintiff’s denial of consent was insufficient to establish a fair question to be tried.

The Court gave significant consideration to the 2004 mortgage dispute. The Plaintiff, a lay litigant, alleged fraud but failed to provide documentary evidence or seek the views of the solicitor who witnessed the signatures. The Court found the folio entries consistent with the Defendants’ version, including the 2011 facility letter which clearly secured the loan against the farm. The Plaintiff’s argument that the mortgage should have been over different land was contradicted by his own signed facility letter. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff did not establish a fair question to be tried on this point.

Regarding the balance of convenience, the Court acknowledged the Plaintiff's distress over the debt amount but noted the auction did not affect the family home or the second Plaintiff's house, which was removed from the sale. The Plaintiff had made contractual commitments and planted crops on the land despite financial difficulties. The absence of an undertaking as to damages from the Plaintiff weighed against granting the injunction.

Overall, the balance of convenience favored refusal of the injunction.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunctive relief restraining the sale of the farm.

This decision allows the Defendants to proceed with the auction as scheduled, excluding the second Plaintiff’s house. No broader precedent was established, and the ruling directly affects the parties by permitting the sale to continue without interlocutory restraint.