Official Receiver v McDaid [2016] NICA 62 (16 May 2016)

Official Receiver v McDaid [2016] NICA 62 (16 May 2016)

The failure to notify the appellant of the hearing was an irregularity, not a nullity, and did not automatically void the order; however, justice requires that the Master review her decision in light of the appellant's lack of notice, and the orders for possession and sale should be set aside pending that review.

Citation
[2016] NICA 62
Parties
Applicant: Official Receiver; Appellant: John McDaid
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
16 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Transactions at Undervalue, Service of Process, Nullity Vs Irregularity, Possession and Sale of Property, Review of Court Orders
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Transactions at Undervalue Service of Process Nullity Vs Irregularity Possession and Sale of Property Review of Court Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Official Receiver

Applicant

John McDaid

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to notify the appellant of a hearing rendered the order a nullity or an irregularity
  2. 2 Whether the orders for possession and sale based on the prior order should stand

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to notify the appellant of the hearing was an irregularity, not a nullity, and did not automatically void the order; however, justice requires that the Master review her decision in light of the appellant's lack of notice, and the orders for possession and sale should be set aside pending that review.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order for possession and sale set aside
  • Master directed to review her decision of November 2014 regarding the transfers, in light of the appellant's lack of notice