The High Court has restrained Everyday Finance DAC and receiver Ken Tyrell from selling two farmland plots using the proposed method, pending the determination of proceedings brought by Michael Walsh and Alice Mullins. The injunction is subject to the plaintiffs undertaking to progress the case promptly and not interfere with efforts to sell three forestry plots. The court did not restrain sale of the forestry lands.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy ruled on 30 April 2025 at an interlocutory stage. He found an arguable issue to be tried over whether the defendants took reasonable steps to obtain the best price for the properties. He did not decide that the defendants had breached their duties.
The plaintiffs say the proposed online auction, which had been scheduled for 28 August 2024, risked selling the properties below market value. They relied on a valuation putting the properties at €2.84 million, more than twice the combined advised minimum values of €1.345 million. The court noted the valuation was hearsay and might assume vacant possession, but said it could be considered at this stage. The defendants had chosen not to provide their own valuation evidence.
The plaintiffs also criticised the limited marketing information and the decision to sell without vacant possession. The judge said the defendants had not explained why they would sell in that way or why they had not sought vacant possession. He concluded the plaintiffs had raised a serious issue for trial about the proposed sale method.
The court treated the farmland and forestry differently when weighing the risk of injustice. The first plaintiff had farmed the farmland for 45 years, it was the plaintiffs’ only farmland and source of income, and the judge found it had special value that damages might not readily replace. The plaintiffs’ valuation also exceeded the total debt, leaving a possibility they could retain some land if successful at trial.
The court found no comparable special value in the forestry lands. The plaintiffs were actively seeking to sell them, and evidence of an offer supported their undervalue argument while also indicating that any loss could be compensated in damages. The judge therefore permitted their sale. He said the defendants should consider whether the offer could be used before an auction, but left that decision to them.
The plaintiffs’ other interlocutory arguments did not establish a serious issue to be tried: that the receiver’s appointment over part of a folio was defective, and that the loan transfers to Everyday Finance were not established. The court said the transfer deeds had not been challenged in this application. Any proposed amendment to the summons raising further claims would require a separate application. The court listed the matter for 16 May 2025 to address outstanding matters, including costs, and give directions for pleadings.