A High Court judge has condemned the “egregious conduct” that led to tenants being forced out of their home with genuine fears for their safety.
Ms Justice Nuala Butler said the campaign of harassment and intimidation visited upon the occupants of a property by a man apparently acting on behalf of one of the former owners “cannot be ignored by the court”.
She granted orders sought by receiver Ken Fennell to secure possession of the house in Malahide, Dublin, that had been owned by Brian and Irene Reilly. The judge’s orders, which continue until the full court case is resolved, restrain the couple from taking possession of the property and interfering with the receivership.
She said the pair, either personally or through their agents, have “harassed, intimidated and threatened” tenants and received rental income that was not used to discharge their loan.
The Reillys purchased the property in 1990, and remortgaged in 2007 to part-finance the purchase of an apartment at The Casino in Malahide, where they now reside.
The judge said full repayments have not been made since 2009 and the loan was sold to Promontoria (Oyster) DAC, which in September 2017 demanded immediate repayment of €845,700.
Two months later, it appointed Mr Fennell as receiver over the house, which was occupied until the Residential Tenancies Board ordered the tenants to leave.
Mr Fennell took possession of the property in late 2018, but it was reoccupied by February 2019. The new tenants, including a woman with a young child, informed Mr Fennell’s team that they had a one-year lease from Mr Reilly.
They attempted to co-operate with Mr Fennell and paid rent directly to his agents. However, the judge said, the tenants became the subject of a “sustained campaign of harassment and intimidation” that appears to have been conducted at the behest of Mr Reilly.
The tenants variously informed Mr Fennell they were advised by an individual called “Declan”, who was apparently acting on behalf of Mr Reilly, that their lease was terminated for breach of its terms and they would be evicted, the judge said.
Ms Justice Butler said “Declan” and others appear to have visited the property, and he appears to have threatened to shoot the property manager in the head if he went near the house.
Complaints were made to gardaí, who refused to become involved on the basis that this was a civil matter, she added. The tenants left the property in mid-August as they were afraid for their safety and that of a young child, she said.
At this point, the Reillys purported to transfer the house to a “supposed private settlement trust” operated by anti-eviction campaigner Ben Gilroy, who is “well known to the courts”, the judge said.
Mr Fennell’s agents discovered a new family in the house, who again advised him they had a lease. He brought proceedings against the Reillys in early 2021 seeking possession.
Ms Justice Butler said Mr Reilly’s affidavit to the court did not deny the very serious allegations against him and his agents. He submitted that he continued to make monthly €1,000 payments in servicing the loan.
Ms Reilly claimed the proceedings against her are misconceived, as no evidence had been produced of obstruction by her of Mr Fennell.
The Reillys claimed, among other things, that they are entitled to a substantial restructuring of their loan and that one was agreed between them and Ulster Bank in 2011.
The judge agreed with Mr Fennell’s barrister, Anthony Thuillier, that there was a “dearth of evidence” in support of the couple’s arguments. Some of their points were “manifestly contrary to all the evidence in the case”, she said.
Ms Justice Butler was satisfied Mr Fennell established a “strong arguable case” that he was validly appointed as receiver and that he is exercising powers validly conferred on him. She was satisfied damages would be an adequate remedy for the Reillys if they ended up being successful in the wider action.
She rejected an attempt by the defendants’ counsel to argue that the harassment and intimidation of tenants who co-operated with Mr Fennell was engaged in by Mr Reilly’s agent, rather than Mr Reilly himself. She also rejected Ms Reilly’s attempt to distance herself from her husband’s actions and those he engaged to act on their behalf.
The judge was satisfied the interferences with the receivership should be characterised as a “joint enterprise between the defendants for their mutual benefit”.
