Keating -v- Keating & Anor [2009] IEHC 405 (24 August 2009)

Keating -v- Keating & Anor [2009] IEHC 405 (24 August 2009)

The court found no evidence of duress or undue influence in the land transfer; the plaintiff was not assaulted or bullied into the transaction. The land transfer was not unconscionable or improvident given the circumstances, including the plaintiff's financial difficulties and the benefits received. The quota transfer was found to be forged by one of the defendants, and the plaintiff is entitled to relief on that ground. The defendants were not liable for detinue or conversion of cattle or machinery, as payments were made or property was included in the sale. The second defendant admitted to assault and is liable for damages. No injunctive relief was warranted for the water supply or...

Citation
[2009] IEHC 405
Parties
Plaintiff: James Keating; Defendant: Catherine Keating; Defendant: Patrick Keating
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 August 2009
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action / Judgment After Plenary Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim to set aside the land transfer dismissed; claim regarding quota transfer succeeds; claim for detinue/conversion dismissed; damages awarded for assault; no injunctive relief granted.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Duress, Unconscionable Bargain, Detinue, Conversion, Trespass, Assault, Land Transfer, Quota Transfer, Early Retirement Scheme
Property Law Equity Contract Law Tort Law Undue Influence Duress Unconscionable Bargain Detinue +6 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Keating

Plaintiff

Catherine Keating

Defendant

Patrick Keating

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action / Judgment After Plenary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land transfer was procured by duress or undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the land transfer was an unconscionable bargain or improvident transaction
  3. 3 Whether the quota transfer was valid or forged

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence of duress or undue influence in the land transfer; the plaintiff was not assaulted or bullied into the transaction. The land transfer was not unconscionable or improvident given the circumstances, including the plaintiff's financial difficulties and the benefits received. The quota transfer was found to be forged by one of the defendants, and the plaintiff is entitled to relief on that ground. The defendants were not liable for detinue or conversion of cattle or machinery, as payments were made or property was included in the sale. The second defendant admitted to assault and is liable for damages. No injunctive relief was warranted for the water supply or...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim to set aside the land transfer dismissed; claim regarding quota transfer succeeds; claim for detinue/conversion dismissed; damages awarded for assault; no injunctive relief granted.

Orders

  • Land transfer stands; not set aside.
  • Quota transfer declared void; defendants to account for profits from quota.