Kirby v McCann & Anor (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 239 (06 October 2023)

Kirby v McCann & Anor (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 239 (06 October 2023)

The High Court correctly found the June 2018 Facility and security were enforceable on a standalone basis, with no legal or documentary connection to the June 2019 Facility. Defendants' regulatory and contractual defences lacked evidential support and did not deprive the Receiver of a strong case for mandatory relief. New arguments raised on appeal were inadmissible.

Citation
[2023] IECA 239
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Myles Kirby; Defendant/appellant: Peter McCann; Defendant/appellant: Joan McCann
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Receiver Appointment, Mortgage Enforcement, Guarantee Validity, Regulatory Compliance, Mandatory Injunctions
Property Law Contract Law Banking and Finance Law Receiver Appointment Mortgage Enforcement Guarantee Validity Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Injunctions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myles Kirby

Plaintiff/respondent

Peter McCann

Defendant/appellant

Joan McCann

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting the Receiver interlocutory relief
  2. 2 Whether the June 2018 Facility was contingent on the June 2019 Facility
  3. 3 Validity of the security and guarantee given by defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly found the June 2018 Facility and security were enforceable on a standalone basis, with no legal or documentary connection to the June 2019 Facility. Defendants' regulatory and contractual defences lacked evidential support and did not deprive the Receiver of a strong case for mandatory relief. New arguments raised on appeal were inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order affirmed
  • Defendants to vacate and deliver up possession of the Property