The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Peter McCann and Joan McCann and affirmed an order setting aside a conveyance of their Shankill family home. Mr Justice Binchy found that the transfer into Joan McCann’s sole name was intended to defeat a potential claim by solicitor Adrian McNamara, practising as Murphy McNamara Solicitors.
The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order made on 12 March 2015 under section 74(3) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The High Court affirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. It did not reopen or reconsider the separate judgment for legal fees against Peter McCann.
McNamara had obtained a High Court judgment in default of defence against Peter McCann in May 2012 for €411,845.22. The judgment followed claims about legal services provided to companies owned by Peter McCann. McNamara gave evidence that Peter McCann had personally assured him that he would cover fees owed by the companies. Peter McCann denied giving that assurance, disputed aspects of the fees and complained that he had not received a full hearing. His attempt to set aside the fees judgment had been refused, and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The disputed conveyance was dated 5 November 2010 and registered in January 2011. The property was described in the judgment as the defendants’ family home. Peter McCann said the property had been registered jointly by mistake when acquired in 1993, using funds provided by his wife, and that the later conveyance corrected the title. Joan McCann gave similar evidence and said she was unsure when she learned that her husband faced a claim for money, though she knew of a meeting about payment in August 2010.
The judge found the defendants knew, when they executed the deed, that McNamara intended to pursue Peter McCann personally for debts linked to his companies. He rejected their explanation that the original joint registration was a mistake, noting that no supporting evidence had been produced and describing the absence of other relevant documents as “quite simply incredible”. The court also criticised the failure to produce available title documents, while making clear that this point did not form part of the decision’s legal basis.
Under section 74(3), a conveyance made with the intention of defrauding a creditor or other person is voidable by anyone prejudiced by it. The judge found that defeating McNamara’s potential claim was an express purpose of the transfer and concluded that its likely effect also supported a finding of fraud. He therefore affirmed the Circuit Court’s declaration that the deed was void and its order setting it aside.