The High Court Clarifies The Approach In The Goldstein Judgment

Introduction

On 13 May 2026, Mr. Justice Twomey delivered a judgment in which the Court refused to grant an injunction prohibiting the sale of properties by receivers. The case involved the Irish property fund Goldstein Properties ICAV (“Goldstein”) and RELM Loan Opportunities DAC (“RELM”) the commercial and residential real estate finance company.

The Court was critical of the conduct of the parties, in particular in relation to the plaintiffs attempt to prevent the sale of the property in question by threatening the estate agents acting in the sale. The Court noted that while there was nothing illegal about the conduct, and it did not play a part in the outcome of the decision, it was very critical of what it termed the “weaponisation” of legal costs to secure a result in the absence of a court order. The Court placed reliance on the delay in seeking to injunct the sale and the fact that damages would be an adequate remedy if Goldstein were to ultimately succeed at a full hearing. 

Background 

The key issue before the Court in this case was Goldstein’s application for an interlocutory injunction against the Receivers, preventing the sale of certain property provided as security for its borrowings of from RELM. There was a breakdown in relations between Goldstein and RELM in 2024, following which RELM appointed Ken Fennell and Brendan O’Reilly (the “Receivers”), of Interpath Advisory, by way of Deeds of Appointment dated 13 November 2024 over Certain Assets of Goldstein Property ICAV (Acting solely in respect of its sub-fund Goldstein Property Fund II) (In Receivership).

A number of interesting points were raised in the Judgment including: 

• the Court’s criticism of the threats to litigate against an auctioneer as a form of intimidation (which the Court stressed was not directed as the solicitors but the instructing party itself);
• the “weaponisation” of High Court costs to obtain the result it sought without the benefit of any High Court order; and
• issues relating to the delay and conduct of parties feeding into the balance of justice test.

Summary of the plaintiff’s case 

The plaintiff’s claim was seeking an interlocutory injunction against the Receivers, preventing them from selling the properties. However, this was a separate case to another set of proceedings launched by Goldstein where it maintained that RELM was not entitled to call in the loan and appoint the Receivers in November 2024 on the basis that they were estopped from doing so given previous representations made by RELM (the “Estoppel Proceedings”). 

The Court held that this challenge was “inextricably linked” with the Estoppel Proceedings, where Mr Justice Twomey had held that although the case was “very weak” it was not so weak to merit a strike out. However, the lis pendens registered against the property were directed to be removed.  

After failing in that application to retain the lis pendens in the estoppel proceedings, the plaintiff proceeded to instruct its solicitors send a letter to the sales agent threatening litigation if they proceeded with the sale. The Court noted that Goldstein then issued the injunction proceedings in a further attempt to prevent the sale of the property.

Issues relating to delay and the conduct of parties feeding into the balance of justice test 

In determining whether or not to grant the interlocutory injunction, the Court focused primarily on the balance of justice test confirmed by the Supreme Court in Merck Sharpe and Dohme v. Clonmel Healthcare [2019] IESC 65.

Delay 

One factor the Court considered was the plaintiffs delay in applying for an injunction after the appointment of the Receivers in respect of all proceedings ongoing. The Court references Clarke. J in Dowling v Minister for Finance  when outlining why delay is a factor in granting an interlocutory injunction as “ factors, therefore, which come into play in assessing whether a party has moved with reasonable expedition… are governed by much stricter scrutiny, than those which apply when the Court is considering whether a party has lost all entitlement to bring proceedings”. 

Legal threats to the sales agent

Secondly, the Court outlined that although the letter sent by William Fry on the instruction of Goldstein was legal and not determinative to their decision, it nonetheless did not assist Goldstein in their application. The Judge viewed this action as seeking to weaponise the potential costs of litigation to achieve a result without the need for a court order. The Court noted that the sales agent was an innocent third party and the threat of litigation, coupled with the plaintiffs ability to fund expensive litigation gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage and the resources to make such threats. Justice Twomey noted that care should be taken when issuing these types of letters, particularly to parties unconnected with the dispute as it ultimately forces them to obtain legal advice, and therefore incur a cost, unless they comply with what is demanded of them. The Court noted that weaponisation of costs is much easier in Ireland than in other jurisdictions due to the concentration of civil litigation within the High Court, rather than the less expensive District and Circuit Courts. 

The Court outlined that whilst this letter is an attempt to intimidate, it is a threat to issue proceedings, rather than the actual commencement of proceedings, and therefore falls short of 'lawfare' which is criticised in the Irish courts in M v M [2026] IESC 2 and in Morgan v Labour Court [2025] IECA 2.

Decision 

As discussed, Twomey. J determined that the only real dispute between the parties, in both the Estoppel Proceedings and the current proceedings is whether the Receivers were validly appointed. It was reiterated that this was the third attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the sale of the properties by the Receivers. The Court reiterated that a significant factor in the decision and weighing in on the balance of justice was the delay in that the applicants claim the Receivers were invalidly appointed was ‘very weak’ and it would be unjust to grant the interlocutory injunction on the basis of such a claim.

Conclusion 

This decision clarifies the Court’s position on how delay can impact the balance of justice test when determining whether to order an injunction. It is also important to note the Court’s criticism of extrajudicial tactics to achieve a goal outside of the Court process by seeking to weaponise the potential costs of litigation. While they are not determinative, one will have be criticised by the Court for acting without the benefit of a court order. This illustrates the importance of ethical conduct in these types of applications where the Court has to decide what would be ‘just’ or ‘equitable’. The decision also reaffirms how the Court will apply the balance of justice test by looking at the conduct of the parties and any delay in bringing an application for an interlocutory injunction. 

Footnotes

1. Goldstein Property ICAV and Relm Loan Opportunities 2 DAC, Relm Loan Opportunities 3 DAC, Relm Loan Opportunities 4 Dac, Ken Fennell and Brendan O’Reilly [2026] IEHC 299 
2. [2013] 4 I.R. 576, at pg. 599

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.