Manning v Manning (Approved) [2023] IEHC 659 (28 November 2023)

Manning v Manning (Approved) [2023] IEHC 659 (28 November 2023)

The court found that John Manning failed to show a good reason why the sale should not proceed. The satisfaction of the Ulster Bank debt from jointly owned property did not extinguish John's liability to Thomas, and the court order in Thomas's favour remains enforceable. To refuse the order would be to rewrite the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 659
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Manning; Defendant: John Manning
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Special Summons / Judgment on Application for Order for Sale
Outcome
Order for sale granted
Legal Topics
Order for Sale of Property, Enforcement of Judgment, Indemnity, Joint and Several Liability, Execution of Court Orders
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Order for Sale of Property Enforcement of Judgment Indemnity Joint and Several Liability Execution of Court Orders

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Manning

Plaintiff

John Manning

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Summons / Judgment on Application for Order for Sale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a good reason not to order the sale of 85 Ballyfermot Crescent to satisfy the judgment debt owed by John Manning to Thomas Manning
  2. 2 Whether the satisfaction of the Ulster Bank debt from jointly owned property extinguished John Manning's liability to Thomas Manning

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that John Manning failed to show a good reason why the sale should not proceed. The satisfaction of the Ulster Bank debt from jointly owned property did not extinguish John's liability to Thomas, and the court order in Thomas's favour remains enforceable. To refuse the order would be to rewrite the parties' arrangements and court orders, which is not permissible.

Court Disposition

Order for sale granted

Orders

  • Order directing the sale of 85 Ballyfermot Crescent, Dublin 10
  • Ancillary orders to facilitate the sale