The High Court refused an application by Start Mortgages Limited to make absolute a conditional order appointing a receiver over any settlement proceeds or damages awarded to Dorothy Doheny in her personal injury proceedings. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 19 December 2014, held that the court had no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution over future debts.
Peart J. had made the conditional order on 10 February 2014, limiting it to €158,017.03. Start Mortgages said it was owed that amount under a 2012 consent judgment against Christopher and Dorothy Doheny, plus costs of €2,000. The debt remained outstanding apart from €200 paid during attempted negotiations. The company had secured the judgment against land belonging to Christopher Doheny. It said it had taken no steps to secure it against Dorothy Doheny because she had no available assets in her name.
The company sought to have David Lane appointed receiver over any settlement or damages from Dorothy Doheny’s personal injury action against Persian Restaurants, trading as McDonald’s Restaurant. The action had transferred from the Circuit Court to the High Court. No notice of trial had been served. The company argued the damages would be a future debt and that an appointment would be just and convenient. The estimated receivership cost was €500 plus VAT.
Counsel for Dorothy Doheny argued that the claim was not property capable of assignment and that the law did not permit a receiver over unliquidated future personal injury damages. No affidavit was filed on her behalf. The court noted that the details of the injury claim, including liability and the nature of the injuries, were unknown to the company and had not been put before the court.
Justice Donnelly considered the Supreme Court’s decision in National Irish Bank Ltd v. Graham and the High Court decision in Honniball v. Cunningham, which she said confined equitable execution to cases where the judgment debtor had only an equitable interest in property. She concluded that a claim for future personal injury damages was not an equitable interest in property. Although an earlier High Court decision, O’Connell v. An Bord Pleanála, had allowed a receiver over future damages, she found there were strong reasons to depart from it because it had not significantly reviewed Graham or Honniball.
The judge said that, had jurisdiction existed, the debt, potential value of the claim and comparatively low costs could have made a receivership just and convenient. She also said any such order should cover only the damages portion, so legal costs would not be intercepted. But she refused the application, leaving the conditional order unmade absolute.