Judgment: 2022-05-30 · Court archive

High Court finds receiver was validly appointed

The court ruled on the sole issue remitted by the Court of Appeal, while refusing a separate request to vary an Isaac Wunder order.

The High Court, Commercial · [2022] IEHC 344

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Thomas Kearney (Plaintiff)
  • Patrick Horkan (Defendant)
  • Mr Justice Brian O’Moore
What

The court ruled on the sole issue remitted by the Court of Appeal, while refusing a separate request to vary an Isaac Wunder order.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 5 July 2012

    Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the appointment under a deed dated 5 July 2012 was effective and lawful under clause 8.1 of the charge. He applied the principles set out by Mr Justice Murray in *Fennell v Corrigan* [2021] IECA 248.

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The High Court has ruled that Patrick Horkan was validly appointed receiver over secured property, deciding the sole outstanding issue remitted by the Court of Appeal.

Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the appointment under a deed dated 5 July 2012 was effective and lawful under clause 8.1 of the charge. He applied the principles set out by Mr Justice Murray in *Fennell v Corrigan* [2021] IECA 248.

The Court of Appeal had remitted the appointment issue in a judgment on 5 August 2020. That followed its main judgment in Thomas Kearney’s appeal, delivered on 8 April 2020, and a review judgment dated 5 August 2020. The judgments are cited as [2020] IECA 92 and [2020] IECA 224 respectively.

The remitted issue was heard on 9 and 10 December 2021. At the start of the hearing, Kearney’s counsel also asked the High Court to vary an Isaac Wunder order imposed by Mr Justice McGovern and upheld, with some variation, by the Court of Appeal. O’Moore refused that request after hearing submissions, saying the proposed argument would not have succeeded.

The decision identifies the appointment as valid and lawful. It does not set out any further order or the terms of the charge. The judge said the full judgment should be circulated before the end of the following court term.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review