The High Court has refused a liquidator’s application to take possession of a property in Duncannon, Co Wexford, for sale under agreements made with the company’s directors and the estate of a former owner.
In a judgment delivered on 25 October 2022, Ms Justice Stack held that the summary recovery procedure in section 673 of the Companies Act 2014 was unavailable. The court refused all the relief sought. It did not determine whether the agreements remained enforceable; it said those disputes should be addressed in plenary proceedings.
The application concerned Number 8, Farrin Carrig, a house in a residential development built on land owned by Sheila Casey, who is deceased. Her son, Joseph Casey, was described as the estate’s sole executor and beneficiary and as the person entitled to be registered as owner. The judgment said he was in possession in that capacity. His wife, Sharon Casey, derived her claimed right to enter and occupy through him.
The liquidator, George Maloney, had authority under agreements approved by the High Court in 2009 to arrange the sale and divide the proceeds. The agreements did not give the company ownership of the property. The judge said the liquidator might have an implied contractual right to enter the property to prepare it for sale, but did not decide that question.
The respondents disputed whether the agreements could still be enforced. They raised, among other matters, delay and the effect of the death of the former owner. The judge held that these issues could not be finally resolved through the summary procedure. Any order for possession under that procedure would, at most, be interim, and would serve no purpose while the underlying dispute prevented a sale.
The court also found that section 673 applied to specified categories of people holding company property, and could not be used against Joseph Casey merely because he was a company director when he held the property as executor or beneficiary of the estate. The company was not prima facie entitled to the property itself.
The judgment separately addressed a licence under which Sheila Casey’s husband, Thomas Keogh, was said to occupy the property. It said any licence appeared to have been granted by the estate, not the company, and section 602 did not apply. The court also found no basis in this application to require details of leases or licences, or an account of payments. It noted that a licence of this kind would not bind third parties such as the company or liquidator.
The judge said the appropriate course for the liquidator, if he wished to pursue possession, was to bring plenary proceedings. The application before her was refused in full.