AIB Mortgage Bank UC & Anor v Burke & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 755 (03 December 2024)

AIB Mortgage Bank UC & Anor v Burke & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 755 (03 December 2024)

The transfers of the three properties by the first and second defendants to the third defendant were made at a gross undervalue, in circumstances where the defendants were significantly indebted to the plaintiffs, and with the intention of defrauding the plaintiffs as creditors. The badges of fraud were present, including undervalue, familial relationship, retention of benefit, and lack of bona fide explanation. The transfers are voidable under section 74(3) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 755
Parties
Plaintiff: AIB (Plaintiffs); Defendant: First Named Defendant; Defendant: Second Named Defendant (deceased); Defendant: Third Named Defendant (daughter); Defendant: Fourth Named Defendant (John Shiels)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Plenary Action / Final Judgment After Hearing, Defendants' Defences Struck Out
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeed; transfers set aside.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Conveyance, Creditor Protection, Setting Aside Transactions, Undervalue Transfers
Property Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Fraudulent Conveyance Creditor Protection Setting Aside Transactions Undervalue Transfers

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AIB (Plaintiffs)

Plaintiff

First Named Defendant

Defendant

Second Named Defendant (deceased)

Defendant

Third Named Defendant (daughter)

Defendant

Fourth Named Defendant (John Shiels)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Action / Final Judgment After Hearing, Defendants' Defences Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conveyances of property by the first and second defendants to the third defendant were fraudulent under section 74(3) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009
  2. 2 Whether the transfers were made at undervalue with intent to defraud creditors
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the transfers

Ratio Decidendi

The transfers of the three properties by the first and second defendants to the third defendant were made at a gross undervalue, in circumstances where the defendants were significantly indebted to the plaintiffs, and with the intention of defrauding the plaintiffs as creditors. The badges of fraud were present, including undervalue, familial relationship, retention of benefit, and lack of bona fide explanation. The transfers are voidable under section 74(3) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeed; transfers set aside.

Orders

  • The three property transfers to the third defendant are set aside on grounds of fraud.