High Court grants woman injunction to stop receivers from taking landmark property on Waterford Greenway

Ms Justice Carmel Stewart, in a judgment published this week, found Catherine Barry, who says she lives in a cottage adjoining the property, was entitled to an injunction preventing the receivers taking possession, trespassing on, or selling the property pending further proceedings.

Ennis appointed receivers arising out of three loans between 2006 and 2008 to Barry family companies by Bank of Scotland Ireland. The loans, including one of nearly €465,000, were secured on the property itself. Ms Barry provided guarantees on the loans.

The loans were later sold to Ennis which sought immediate repayment last May but which was not forthcoming. When Ennis appointed receivers, Ms Barry brought injunction proceedings seeking to stop them taking over the property.

Among her claims were that she had inherited her husband's struggling business following his (husband's) sudden death in 2000 and, given her lack of business acumen, she began to place increasing reliance on her son Niall in the running of the business.

Ms Justice Stewart said Niall had worked in the business for two years prior to his father's death and, it was claimed, Niall was angry that his father's will had not properly provided for him.

He allegedly threatened to leave the family business if his mother did not act as guarantor, the judge said.

While Ms Barry had significant reservations about her son borrowing such large sums of money, she said she executed the guarantees under duress and undue influence placed on her by her son given her reliance on him to run the business. She also says she received no legal advice before doing so.

She also claimed repayments on the largest loan were up to date and that her involvement in them was not commercial but as a consumer, giving her protections under the Consumer Credit Act.

Donal O’Sullivan, a director of Ennis, disputed her "self-characterisation as a housewife with no business acumen". He claimed she was actually the driving force behind the family business, both before and after her husband's death.

Mr O'Sullivan also said there was a settlement agreement between two Barry companies and Ennis in which Ms Barry acknowledged her indebtedness and set out a new system of repayments which was not adhered to. Ms Barry denied she was involved in that agreement which was, she said, negotiated by Niall.

Granting the injunction, Ms Justice Stewart said while not making any findings of fact at this stage in the case, she was satisfied Ms Barry had established an arguable case that she was acting under the influence of her son Niall at the time of the loan transactions.

The judge said that finding was primarily based on the fact no evidence was provided to show she was a capable businesswoman at the time. If however evidence was to come to hand to show she was "sufficiently proficient at that time", the judge might reconsider that finding, particularly if it shows she did not disclose relevant material during the injunction proceedings.

She had "just barely discharged" the burden necessary to establish there was a serious issue to be tried, the judge said.

The judge was satisfied that the application of standard principles for granting injunctions (known as the Campus Oil test) to the facts of this case favoured Ms Barry.