John Gilligan made his own legal submissions yesterday at the end of the receivership application, which had gone on for five days.
Gilligan is is no longer legally represented because he discharged his lawyers on the first day of the case last week.
He contests the right of the Cab to make this latest application because he contends there is a pending appeal to the Supreme Court against an order made freezing his assets.
If a receiver were appointed to the properties, he and his family would have less rights than squatters, he said. Even on the basis of squatters' rights laws, his family would be entitled to own some of the properties involved because they have occupied them for more than 12 years, he said.
Gilligan also disputed reports which said he was convicted of having 20,000 kg, or €17 million, worth of cannabis. He said he was convicted of having €134,000 worth of the drug, a finding made in his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
In submissions for Mrs Gilligan, Paul Burns SC said the Cab had changed its original application to have a receiver appointed to sell the properties and now wanted the receiver to rent it.
Jessbrook, far from being in a state of dilapidation as claimed by the Cab, was well maintained despite the fact that it has not been used as an equestrian centre for 11 years, he said.
The properties were uninsured because the Gilligans had been unable to get insurance, but there was no reason in law or in practice why the Cab could not insure them without taking them into receivership, he added.
Stephen Byrne, for Darren Gilligan, said if a receiver were appointed to the house at Weston Green, owned by Darren and his father, it would deprive him of his only source of income, €1,300 received monthly in rent.
Paul O'Higgins SC, for the Cab, said Jessbrook had all the appearance of having been abandoned and any costs of repair for damage would not be recoverable because of the absence of insurance. Mr O'Higgins said Gilligan's claims that these proceedings should not be heard because of his separate appeal to the Supreme Court were not correct and there was nothing in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 preventing this application from being made.