Access to my own apartment?

Kosseegan

Lantus wrote: »

I wonder if the subtletly here is the fact the agent has no interest where as if the directors had applied directly they would of been awarded in their favour? As you say the company is the owner of the building

The case wasn't taken by the agent. This case goes to show that care has to be taken in pursuing arrears of service charges.
The management company in this case was left with a large legal bill as well.

http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/36b3ebdf059a5be1802578380040fdb5?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,linnane

jd

Here's the judgement
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/24F5908722BBA02A80257B500052C097?Open&Highlight=0,waterside,~language_en~

A fundamental issue arising in the within appeal is the submission that the assistance of the court in appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution may quite specifically be reserved, per the statement of Keane J. in National Irish Bank v. Graham, to those circumstances where the debtor holds an equitable interest in property which is not capable of being attached by the ordinary processes of enforcement at law.
To that extent, the question of whether legal remedies have been exhausted becomes largely subsidiary to the question of the nature of the interest in question, whether equitable or legal. Notwithstanding this consideration, it would appear in any event that the respondent has not exhausted all reasonably available avenues at law in seeking to execute the extant judgment in its favour. While the respondent was undoubtedly experiencing severe difficulties in making contact with the appellants, Order 10 of the District Court Rules, 1997 provides for remedies as to service entirely similar to those in fact sought and obtained of the Circuit Court, which ultimately resulted in the appellants coming before the Court to contest the application in question. In any event there are now no remaining problems in serving the appellants as they are represented at this hearing.

Aside from this, it appears the sum in question is a relatively small one, such as to raise a reasonable apprehension that the effect of appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution over the rents payable would be disproportionately prejudicial towards others holding an interest in the properties in question. It seems to me, therefore, that even had the other requirements been satisfied, the appointment of a receiver could not be deemed “just and convenient” in this case.

It must be noted that a prima facie divergence is evident between the conceptual approaches taken to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution in the authorities cited supra. However, I am satisfied that, on any formulation of the relevant criteria, this is not a suitable case in which to appoint a receiver, and it is therefore unnecessary for present purposes to distinguish between them.

For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the learned Circuit Court Judge will be set aside.