A Monaghan landowner has been refused an injunction by the High Court to prevent a receiver from selling farmland once owned by him.

In a judgment issued by Justice Brian Cregan, he ruled that the plaintiff in the case, landowner Kieran McKenna, “delayed for too long in applying” for the injunctive relief.

The aim of the injunction was to restrain the receiver, Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Designated Activity Company and Ken Fennell, from completing the sale of the farmland.

On or about 16 November 2004, McKenna borrowed the sum of €220,000 from Irish Nationwide Building Society. On 8 March 2005, the loan was secured on the property when McKenna mortgaged the said property to Irish Nationwide Building Society.

The loan and mortgage were subsequently transferred to Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (IBRC) on or about 1 July, 2011, the judgment states. The loan and mortgage were then transferred to Shoreline Residential Ltd by the IBRC on or about 6 March 2014.


The plaintiff, McKenna, defaulted on the loan on or about 8 July 2015 and “no payment of principal or interest on the said loan has been made since that time”.

In September of 2018, Shoreline appointed Ken Fennell as a receiver over the farmland and in April 2019 Shoreline transferred the loan and mortgage to Pepper Finance.

In August 2019, the appointment of Fennell as receiver, was novated (replaced) from Shoreline to Pepper in an agreement entered into between Shoreline, Pepper and the receiver.

Outstanding debt

“The current debt outstanding on the loan is approximately €276,550 and interest continues to accrue at €33 per day. Attempts were made by the receiver to sell the property in September 2019, November 2020, and December 2020, without success,” the judgment states.

Around this time, McKenna appointed a Mr Larry Shiels to act on his behalf and to negotiate with the defendants on his behalf in respect of his loan.

On 2 February, 2021, Shiels, on behalf of the plaintiff, made an offer of €80,000 “in full and final settlement of this matter” payable within 90 days. This offer was rejected.

“This offer was increased to €90,000 on 16 March 2021 and was again increased to a sum of €120,000 on 9 July 2021.”

Pepper rejected the offers and in July 2021, the receiver entered into a contract of sale to sell the property to a third party for the sum of €120,000.

McKenna’s solicitors were informed of this on 7 September 2021 by phone and on 29 September 2021 in writing.

“On 18 November 2021, the plaintiff issued his plenary summons in these proceedings. However, no application for an interlocutory injunction was brought at that time. Instead, the plaintiff waited until 26 January 2022 – some months later – to issue a notice of motion seeking the current injunctive relief,” the judgment states.


Pepper stated that McKenna’s offer of €120,000 “in full and final settlement” was intended to mean that he was offering €120,000 “to settle the entirety of his debt with Pepper (which debt is approximately €276,000). “Pepper rejected this offer for a number of reasons – in particular because Pepper has a mortgage over another property belonging to the plaintiff which it has had valued in the sum of €110,000.

“It would therefore make no sense for Pepper to accept a sum of €120,000 in full and final settlement of the entirety of the plaintiff’s debt in circumstances where it could also obtain a further sum of €110,000 for the sale of the plaintiff’s other property over which it also had security.”

Concluding, Mr Justice Cregan said that McKenna had not established a fair question to be tried, that the balance of justice is in favour of refusing the relief sought and that the plaintiff has delayed for too long in applying for injunctive relief. He refused the application.