ACC Loan Management Ltd -v- Rickard & Anor [2017] IECA 245 (31 July 2017)

ACC Loan Management Ltd -v- Rickard & Anor [2017] IECA 245 (31 July 2017)

The Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution is not confined to equitable interests; it extends to legal interests where legal execution is unavailable. The entitlement to BPS payments is a legal chose in action and not analogous to protected earnings. The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over future BPS payments, and the order was an appropriate exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2017] IECA 245
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: ACC Loan Management Limited; Defendant/appellant: Mark Rickard; Defendant: Gerard Rickard
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Receiver by Way of Equitable Execution, Enforcement Against Future Payments, Legal Vs Equitable Interests, Chose in Action
Civil Procedure Equity Enforcement of Judgments Appointment of Receiver by Way of Equitable Execution Enforcement Against Future Payments Legal Vs Equitable Interests Chose in Action

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACC Loan Management Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Mark Rickard

Defendant/appellant

Gerard Rickard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution confined to equitable interests in property?
  2. 2 Can a receiver be appointed over future payments under the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS)?
  3. 3 Are BPS payments analogous to salaries, earnings, or wages, and thus protected from receivership?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution is not confined to equitable interests; it extends to legal interests where legal execution is unavailable. The entitlement to BPS payments is a legal chose in action and not analogous to protected earnings. The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over future BPS payments, and the order was an appropriate exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Receiver appointed by way of equitable execution over payments due to the appellant under the Basic Payment Scheme
  • Variation of previous order to cover BPS payments