The High Court refused to grant injunction restraining a receiver from selling lands belonging to a borrower, on the grounds that it was not a conflict of interest for a receiver to be appointed agent of a borrower, and no fair issue had been established.
Borrower seeking to restrain sale by defendants of lands pending the trial ‒ lands relate to residential development ‒ held in three parcels, two registered one unregistered ‒ plenary summons claims damages for misrepresentation, slander of title, trespass, breach of constitutional rights, negligence ‒ no statement of claim delivered ‒ plaintiff's case was effectively second defendant cannot act as agent of Everyday while he stood appointed receiver, in which capacity he was deemed by Clause (3) of the relevant mortgage and charges to be the agent of the plaintiff borrower ‒ defendants said there was no fair question to be tried as to whether the receiver can act as such at the same time as he is appointed agent of Everyday ‒ court considers whether fair issue to be tried ‒ court found that decision in Vitgeson was binding ‒ court found there were no conflicts on the facts of the case ‒ plaintiff failed to establish a fair issue to be tried ‒ injunction must be refused.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.