The High Court has authorised the receiver of Harcourt Life Assurance Company Limited to sell two sites at The Orchard in Dalkey to Karl O’Connell under a contract dated 1 February 2016.
In a judgment delivered on 12 May 2016, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern gave the receiver directions under section 438(1) of the Companies Act 2014. The order confirmed that the receiver could sell the properties over which he had been appointed and could complete the sale to O’Connell on the contract’s terms. The court did not determine the separate proceedings brought in 2005 concerning the properties.
The two properties are sites 3 and 4 at The Orchard Site, Green Road, Dalkey. The receiver had been appointed by Launceston Property Finance Limited, which acquired the company’s loan and mortgage security. The company admitted owing Launceston more than €2.3 million. The receiver had agreed to sell the sites to O’Connell for a combined €1.115 million.
O’Mahony opposed the sale, saying he had a 2004 contract to buy site 4 and an equitable interest in the properties. James Walsh had also claimed to have contracted to buy site 3, but withdrew his opposition before the application was heard. The judge found no evidence of a trust in O’Mahony’s favour and noted that he had not paid a deposit or sought specific performance of the alleged contract. The court accepted that the evidence showed O’Mahony and Walsh had invested in a bond linked to the site, rather than established an interest in the land.
O’Mahony also challenged the transfer of the loan and security to Launceston. The judge held that the assignment was valid, including because either of IBRC’s joint special liquidators could exercise the relevant powers individually. He said the receiver’s appointment had not been successfully challenged and that O’Mahony was not a company creditor with standing to contest it.
After the original hearing date was postponed when another judge recused himself, O’Mahony offered €1.2 million for both sites, saying he could complete within 30 days. The receiver rejected the offer. The judge found the receiver had obtained valuations and that the agreed price was within their upper range. He also considered O’Mahony’s offer insufficiently supported as to funding and noted the sale contract required court approval by 31 May 2016.
The court concluded that the other proceedings, which had been running for almost 11 years, did not prevent it from deciding the receiver’s application. It granted the two directions sought; the judgment does not state whether the sale was subsequently completed.