M and J Developments Ltd v Everyday Finance DAC & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 141 (12 June 2024)

M and J Developments Ltd v Everyday Finance DAC & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 141 (12 June 2024)

There is no legal principle prohibiting a receiver from also acting as agent for the mortgagee in arranging a sale, provided no actual conflict of interest arises on the facts. In this case, the appellant failed to establish any actual conflict or fair question to be tried, and thus was not entitled to interlocutory relief.

Citation
[2024] IECA 141
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: M & J Duddy Developments Limited; Defendant/respondent: Everyday Finance DAC; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Dolliver; Defendant/respondent: Wilsons Auctions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Receivership, Agency, Mortgage Enforcement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Conflict of Interest
Property Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Receivership Agency Mortgage Enforcement Interlocutory Injunctions Conflict of Interest

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M & J Duddy Developments Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Everyday Finance DAC

Defendant/respondent

Andrew Dolliver

Defendant/respondent

Wilsons Auctions

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an insolvency practitioner appointed as receiver without a power of sale may lawfully act as agent of the mortgagee in offering the property for sale
  2. 2 Whether such dual appointment gives rise to a conflict of interest precluding the sale
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established a fair question to be tried justifying interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal principle prohibiting a receiver from also acting as agent for the mortgagee in arranging a sale, provided no actual conflict of interest arises on the facts. In this case, the appellant failed to establish any actual conflict or fair question to be tried, and thus was not entitled to interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court affirmed
  • Respondents entitled to costs of the appeal, subject to written submissions by appellant within 10 days if contending otherwise