McCann -v- A, B & C [2015] IEHC 366 (27 April 2015)

McCann -v- A, B & C [2015] IEHC 366 (27 April 2015)

The plaintiff was validly appointed as receiver under the mortgage deeds, which were executed and registered prior to any registration of the family law settlement. The second defendant had no locus standi to challenge the validity of the mortgages or the appointment of the receiver, as she was not a party to the contracts and any such issues were res judicata. The family law settlement and court order did not confer any beneficial or proprietary interest in the relevant properties to the second defendant. The EBS's mortgages had priority, and there was no evidence that the EBS had notice of any competing interest. The plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 366
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul McCann; First Defendant: A; Second Defendant: B; Third Defendant: C
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Possession/receivership Proceedings / Final Orders After Plenary Hearing
Outcome
Orders granted in favour of the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Receivership, Mortgage Enforcement, Priority of Interests, Beneficial Interest, Res Judicata, Locus Standi, Bankers’ Books Evidence, Family Home Protection
Property Law Equity Banking Law Family Law Receivership Mortgage Enforcement Priority of Interests Beneficial Interest +4 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul McCann

Plaintiff

A

First Defendant

B

Second Defendant

C

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession/receivership Proceedings / Final Orders After Plenary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was validly appointed as receiver over the properties
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant had locus standi to challenge the mortgages or receivership
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant had a beneficial or proprietary interest in the properties that could defeat the EBS's interest

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was validly appointed as receiver under the mortgage deeds, which were executed and registered prior to any registration of the family law settlement. The second defendant had no locus standi to challenge the validity of the mortgages or the appointment of the receiver, as she was not a party to the contracts and any such issues were res judicata. The family law settlement and court order did not confer any beneficial or proprietary interest in the relevant properties to the second defendant. The EBS's mortgages had priority, and there was no evidence that the EBS had notice of any competing interest. The plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Orders granted in favour of the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants required to vacate the first and second premises and deliver possession to the plaintiff
  • Defendants restrained from holding themselves out as entitled to deal with, manage, or collect rents from the third to eighth premises