The Court of Appeal has dismissed Seaconview Designated Activity Company’s appeal against a High Court refusal to approve the sale of commercial units at Ardfallen Mall in Douglas, County Cork. The court did not approve the proposed sale or direct a new sale process. It made no order as to costs because the appeal was unopposed.
The dispute concerned three units secured under a 2013 mortgage granted by Liam Fahey to Ulster Bank. The mortgage described the security as covering the ground floors only. Seaconview later said the parties had intended the security to include the basements too. In 2019, the High Court made a well charging order over Fahey’s interest in the ground floors and basements, and ordered their sale if the specified debt was not paid.
A receiver later offered the ground floors of all three units and the basements of Units 1 and 2 for sale by tender. The highest tender, accepted in October 2022, was €2.995 million. Seaconview then sought retrospective court approval for the sale and permission to retain the proceeds against Fahey’s debt. The High Court refused the application in April 2023, citing insufficient evidence that the tender achieved the best price, the absence of conditions settled by conveyancing counsel, unresolved title questions, and the need for the Examiner’s Office to deal with incumbrances.
The Court of Appeal said Seaconview had not provided evidence that all persons interested in the properties were before the court or bound by the order. That evidence was required before a sale could be authorised to proceed out of court. The court also stressed that a well charging order addresses the defendant’s interest in property; it does not establish what that interest is or resolve title.
The judgment identified gaps in the title evidence, including the absence of the 1999 conveyance and a 2013 deed of partition from the material considered. It also said the receiver’s appointment did not extend to the basements, while the proposed contract included them. The court found that the evidence did not establish the claimed good and marketable title or show that the sale price was the best obtainable.
The appeal was dismissed. The court did not order that the properties be sold by public auction; its decision was to uphold the refusal to approve the sale that had already been contracted.