Murphy v McKeown [2020] IECA 75 (26 March 2020)

Murphy v McKeown [2020] IECA 75 (26 March 2020)

The omission of a comma in the bank's name in the receiver's appointment was, on the evidence, an immaterial misdescription that could be corrected by construction. The plaintiff was entitled to sue in the name by which he is commonly known. The High Court afforded the defendants procedural fairness. The balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favored the grant of interlocutory relief to the receiver. The appeal was dismissed as the defendants failed to establish any error in the High Court's orders.

Citation
[2020] IECA 75
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ned Murphy; Defendant/appellant: Paddy McKeown; Defendant/appellant: Adelaide McCarthy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Receivership, Interlocutory Injunctions, Mortgage Enforcement, Misdescription of Parties, Summary Judgment, Commercial Property
Property Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Receivership Interlocutory Injunctions Mortgage Enforcement Misdescription of Parties Summary Judgment +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ned Murphy

Plaintiff/respondent

Paddy McKeown

Defendant/appellant

Adelaide McCarthy

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission of a comma in the name of the appointing bank invalidates the appointment of the receiver
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff can sue under an alias
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in granting interlocutory injunctions restraining interference with the receiver

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of a comma in the bank's name in the receiver's appointment was, on the evidence, an immaterial misdescription that could be corrected by construction. The plaintiff was entitled to sue in the name by which he is commonly known. The High Court afforded the defendants procedural fairness. The balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favored the grant of interlocutory relief to the receiver. The appeal was dismissed as the defendants failed to establish any error in the High Court's orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Gilligan J. affirmed
  • Interlocutory injunctions restraining defendants from interfering with receiver maintained