Barrington v Attorney General & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiffs, a married couple, were registered as owners of a warehouse in The City in 2003. The second Plaintiff operated a flooring business from the property; the Plaintiffs say they were dispossessed on 9 April 2025 and that this harmed their livelihood and business. A charge over the Plaintiffs' interest was registered in 2006 in favour of Company E and transferred to Company A in 2017. That charge was cancelled on 29 December 2022 and Company B was registered as full owner on that date. The Plaintiffs contest the validity of that registration and assert that s.62(6) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 is unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs issued plenary proceedings in May 2024 and multiple interim applications followed. An ex parte interlocutory injunction was granted to the Plaintiffs on 11 April 2025 by another judge. The present judgment, delivered by Judge Jordan on 22 June 2026, concerns a further interlocutory motion issued by the Plaintiff on 14 April 2025 and the suitability of interlocutory relief (including continuation or setting aside of prior interim relief).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiffs remain the lawful owners of the warehouse and whether the registration of Company B as owner (and the transfer pursuant to s.62(6) Registration of Title Act 1964) is invalid or unconstitutional.
2. Whether the appointment of a receiver and any subsequent sale/transfer were valid.
3. Whether the Plaintiffs established a strong case and met the balance of justice to obtain interlocutory relief restraining Company B (and its agents) from dealing with the property or from remaining in possession.
4. Whether the forcible entry on 9 April 2025 by agents of Company B constituted unlawful conduct justifying interlocutory relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiffs claim they were wrongfully dispossessed on 9 April 2025 and that their constitutional property and livelihood rights were breached.
• The Plaintiffs contend the registration of Company B as owner is invalid and that s.62(6) (and related statutory provisions) are unconstitutional and/or repugnant to Bunreacht na hÉireann.
• The Plaintiffs assert there was no default, that the mortgage was not exercisable, that the receiver was invalidly appointed, and that the sale/transfer occurred at a gross undervalue and involved fraud or illegality.
• The Plaintiff sought interlocutory and constitutional injunctions, and relied on affidavits describing the 9 April 2025 entry, alleged injuries and loss, and on statutory and constitutional arguments concerning registration and treatment of mortgages.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Sixth Named Defendant (Company B) and the Seventh Named Defendant (a director) rely on the Land Register: Company B was registered as full owner with title absolute on 29 December 2022 and is entitled to possession.
• Company A (and others) held the registered charge and had power of sale; the documentation shows the Plaintiffs were subject to facilities that required repayment after interest-only periods.
• The Plaintiffs have not adduced cogent evidence of fraud or mistake sufficient to impeach the conclusive effect of registration under s.31 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 in the absence of actual fraud.
• The Plaintiffs delayed prosecution of the substantive proceedings, have produced limited documentary corroboration of business use or income, and their undertaking as to damages may be of little value; damages would be an adequate remedy.
• Entry by Company B's agents to take possession was lawful as an owner exercising rights over its property where no occupants were present; forcible-entry/Landlord-Tenant authorities do not operate the same way here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the affidavits, exhibits and written submissions. It distilled the Plaintiffs' case as asserting absence of default, invalidity of the receiver's appointment, and invalidity/illegality of the sale and registration. The court examined documentary evidence of the loan facilities and demand letters and noted that the Plaintiffs' core contractual arguments (that liabilities were discharged by the bank's conduct or that repayment obligations were extinguished) were unpersuasive.

The court gave weight to the register: Company B was shown to be registered as full owner with title absolute on 29 December 2022. Section 31 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 was noted: the register is conclusive of title except in cases of actual fraud or mistake. The Plaintiffs' allegations of fraud were serious but unsupported by cogent evidence. Where assertions implicated parties not participating in the interlocutory application (notably Company A and others), the court observed those parties were not afforded an opportunity to answer those assertions in this interlocutory context.

The court assessed the interlocutory injunction tests: strength of the Plaintiffs' case, adequacy of damages, and the balance of justice. It found the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a strong case likely to succeed on the merits against Company B or its director. The court accepted that damages would be an adequate remedy for the commercial property dispute, noted the Plaintiffs' delay in prosecuting the substantive case, and expressed concern about the practical value of any undertaking as to damages given existing cost orders and the Plaintiffs' financial position. On the alleged forcible entry, the court concluded that an owner entering unoccupied property and taking possession may lawfully use the degree of force used here; the Plaintiffs had not shown a strong case on that limb either.

Holding and Implications

THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED TO THE PLAINTIFF ON 11 APRIL 2025 IS SET ASIDE AND THE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF DATED 14 APRIL 2025 IS REFUSED.

Direct effect: Company B's registration and possession remain unimpaired by interlocutory relief; the Plaintiffs' requested restraints on sale, transfer and possession are refused. The court directed that the matter be listed for further case management on 10 June 2026 (10:30am) to address costs and other issues. The judgment does not found a new precedent; the court decided the interlocutory application on the facts, the absence of persuasive evidence of fraud or mistake, the adequacy of damages, delay by the Plaintiffs, and the balance of justice.