McGuinness & Anor v Ulster Bank Ltd [2019] IESC 20 (28 March 2019)

McGuinness & Anor v Ulster Bank Ltd [2019] IESC 20 (28 March 2019)

The Deed of Appointment was validly executed by Mr. McNaughton as attorney for the Bank, with his signature witnessed, satisfying the requirements of section 64(2)(b)(i) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. Therefore, the appointment of the receiver was valid and in compliance with the Deed of Charge.

Citation
[2019] IESC 20
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Charles McGuinness; Plaintiff/appellant: Noel Mulligan; Defendant/respondent: Ulster Bank Ireland Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Via Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Receiver, Execution of Deeds, Powers of Attorney, Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles McGuinness

Plaintiff/appellant

Noel Mulligan

Plaintiff/appellant

Ulster Bank Ireland Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Via Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the receiver was valid under the Deed of Charge and relevant statutory provisions
  2. 2 Whether execution of the Deed of Appointment by an attorney (not under seal) satisfied statutory and contractual requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed of Appointment was validly executed by Mr. McNaughton as attorney for the Bank, with his signature witnessed, satisfying the requirements of section 64(2)(b)(i) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. Therefore, the appointment of the receiver was valid and in compliance with the Deed of Charge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the appointment of the receiver was valid
  • Order of the High Court affirmed