Receiver entitled to control of corner shop

A bank-appointed receiver is entitled to orders for possession of a corner shop in Waterford City, a High Court judge has ruled.

Anthony Elliott and his wife Anne, who own and operate the mini market at Griffith Place, Waterford, had pleaded with the court not to grant the receiver, John Coulston of RSM Farrell Grant Sparks, possession of either the shop or an apartment in the city they owned.

Mr Elliott said he and his wife would be “left without a livelihood and have no means of income” if they had to hand over the shop, and claimed the receivers had acted in an underhand and intimidatory manner towards them.

However, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said while he had “every sympathy” with the Elliotts, he had no choice other than to grant the receiver possession of the properties. The judge said he was placing a three-month stay on the order to allow the Elliotts sort out their affairs in respect of their business.

The judge said this was yet another “tragic” case where “decent” people like the Elliotts had found themselves in financial difficulties caused by the recession.

Mr Coulston and ACC bank sought various orders, including injunctions granting them possession of the properties, and orders prohibiting the Elliotts from interfering or obstructing the receivers from carrying out their duties.

ACC appointed a receiver over the properties in Jun 2012 after the Elliotts failed to pay a demand to repay loans advanced to them in 2004. The couple borrowed money to acquire the properties, but fell behind on repayments and now owe ACC about €600,000.

It was claimed the receiver was prevented from gaining possession of the shop and his agents were threatened and intimidated by people while making attempts to secure the shop.

Anthony Elliott, aged 60, who represented himself, accepted that the money was owed. The former truck driver said he was suing his former legal and financial advisers and ACC for alleged negligence over being sold a financial product which he said was designed to cover the repayments due to the bank.

ACC, he said, accepted this policy as security for the loans. However, he said he later discovered that the product would not cover the repayments, and that he had been “sold a pup”.

ACC should have known the product was never going to cover what was owed. He asked the High Court not to grant the injunction until the action arising out of the alleged mis-selling of the financial product had been resolved.

He rejected allegations that the agents of the receiver had been in any way threatened or intimidated, and said they had been trying to blacken both his and his family’s name.

He said the receivers made a number of attempts to retake possession of the shop. On Sept 27 last, six big men had forced entry into the shop at 4.15am, he claimed. Gardaí were called and told the receiver’s agents were “breaching the peace” and asked them to leave, he said.

Two agents of the receivers remained outside the shop and did not leave until 6pm that day. They were given free apple tarts, tea, coffee, and sandwiches, and allowed use the toilet facilities, Mr Elliott added.

He said his wife’s heath had also suffered due to the receivership.