The injunction was sought by Ken Fennell in respect of a premises at 131 D Slaney Rd, Glasnevin, Dublin 11.
The proceedings were brought against a number of people who, it was alleged, had been in occupation of the premises.
Mr Fennell was appointed receiver of the premises by AIB in October 2014 after the bank obtained a judgment of €2.18m against the property’s owner, Christopher Noone.
Yesterday Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said the receiver was entitled to an injunction until the full dispute has been resolved, and gran- ted him possession of the property.
Mr Fennell, an insolvency practitioner of Deloitte Ireland, sought the injunction because he was unable to secure possession of the premises.
Several parties were in occupation of parts of the property.
The proceedings were brought against the parties Mr Fennell said were in occupation: Ben Gilroy; Anderson Prado; Sylwia Waliszewska, trading as Sun Body Solarium; Paul O’Callaghan; Mariusz Jurkiewics; and Arthur Fluskey.
Mr Gilroy had opposed the application. A solicitor held a watching brief from Ms Waliszewska. There was no appearance in court by the other defendants.
When the case came around for hearing, the court was told that Mr Fluskey was no longer in occupation.
Seeking the orders, counsel for Mr Fennell said that following his appointment the occupants were asked for, but did not furnish him with, details of the legal basis of their occupancy of the building.
They had no lawful entitlement to be on the premises and were trespassers, the receiver submitted.
Mr Gilroy, who claimed he was a tenant and had told the receiver he had been asked to respond on behalf of the tenants, opposed the application.
He advanced several grounds as to why the injunction should not be granted, including that he was entitled to occupy the premises based on a contractual agreement he had with Mr Noone. He also disputed the validity of Mr Fennell’s appointment as receiver.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said that, from the evidence, he was satisfied that none of the defendants had made out any basis for their occupation and Mr Fennell was entitled to an order for possession.
The judge said that, despite repeated requests from the receiver to do so, none of the defendants had submitted proof of their occupancy to Mr Fennell. The judge also dismissed all grounds advanced by Mr Gilroy on why the injunction should not be granted.
The appointment of Mr Fennell, the judge said, as receiver over the property had been a valid one.
The matter was adjourned for a week to allow both sides consider the decision.