Seaconview Designated Activity Company v Fahey (Approved) [2023] IECA 163 (23 June 2023)

Seaconview Designated Activity Company v Fahey (Approved) [2023] IECA 163 (23 June 2023)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide evidence that all persons interested in the property were before the court, failed to establish good marketable title, and did not demonstrate that the price achieved was the best obtainable. The High Court was justified in refusing retrospective approval of the sale and retention of proceeds.

Citation
[2023] IECA 163
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Seaconview Designated Activity Company; Defendant/respondent: Liam Fahey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Approval of Sale
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Well Charging Order, Order for Sale, Mode of Sale, Marketable Title, Incumbrances, Receiver Appointment
Property Law Mortgage Law Civil Procedure Well Charging Order Order for Sale Mode of Sale Marketable Title Incumbrances +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seaconview Designated Activity Company

Plaintiff/appellant

Liam Fahey

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Approval of Sale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to sanction the sale of mortgaged property by private treaty after contract execution
  2. 2 Whether the price achieved was the best obtainable
  3. 3 Whether all persons interested in the property were before the court

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide evidence that all persons interested in the property were before the court, failed to establish good marketable title, and did not demonstrate that the price achieved was the best obtainable. The High Court was justified in refusing retrospective approval of the sale and retention of proceeds.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • no order as to costs