Rickard -v- Rickard [2016] IECA 158 (01 June 2016)

Rickard -v- Rickard [2016] IECA 158 (01 June 2016)

The High Court was correct to conclude that the auctioneer had implicit authority to negotiate a sale by private treaty after the failed auction, subject to court approval. The process was open, fair, and transparent, and the defendants failed to provide evidence of undervalue or impropriety. The refusal to permit cross-examination was justified as there were no material factual disputes. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] IECA 158
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: David Rickard; Defendant/applicant: Mark Rickard; Defendant/applicant: Gerard Rickard; Defendant/applicant: Stephen Rickard
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Partition and Sale of Land, Court Ordered Sale, Variation of Court Orders, Contempt of Court, Sale by Auction Vs Private Treaty
Property Law Civil Procedure Partition and Sale of Land Court Ordered Sale Variation of Court Orders Contempt of Court Sale by Auction Vs Private Treaty

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Rickard

Plaintiff/respondent

Mark Rickard

Defendant/applicant

Gerard Rickard

Defendant/applicant

Stephen Rickard

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to vary an order for sale by public auction to permit sale by private treaty
  2. 2 Whether post-auction negotiations and sale were lawful and fair
  3. 3 Whether the best price was achieved for the lands

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was correct to conclude that the auctioneer had implicit authority to negotiate a sale by private treaty after the failed auction, subject to court approval. The process was open, fair, and transparent, and the defendants failed to provide evidence of undervalue or impropriety. The refusal to permit cross-examination was justified as there were no material factual disputes. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order permitting sale by private treaty at €3,450,000 affirmed
  • Defendants' application for cross-examination refused