Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
      This is an application by commercial investors for certain injunctive relief concerning three buy-to-let properties in which they invested.�
      One of the properties has been sold and the Second Defendant (" Everyday ") holds the proceeds of that sale; a receiver appointed by Everyday (the First Defendant, " the Receiver ") is in control of, and collecting the rent payable in respect of the second property; and no steps have been taken by Everyday regarding the third property.
      By the terms of the Motion as issued, the Plaintiffs seek to restrain the Defendants from taking possession of, and collecting rents from, the properties.� They also seek to restrain the receiver from taking any further steps in the receivership.�
      The parties presented the primary question as being whether there is a serious issue to be tried.� This was the focus of the submissions made.� Both sides assert the balance of justice weighs in their favour.� The Defendants also rely on an allegation of delay, and on the asserted insufficiency of the Plaintiffs' undertaking in damages, to defeat the injunction application.
      Second, there is no suggestion that either side has a connection or interest that it is other than purely financial in the properties.� There are bare assertions of reputation and property rights by the Plaintiffs but there is no elaboration or explanation of these.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.