The High Court has refused an application to consolidate two disputes between brothers over a jointly owned property and a company, finding that it was not clear the cases shared questions that needed to be resolved together.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2024, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy declined Thomas O’Donoghue’s application to combine his proceedings with Martin O’Donoghue’s claim for the sale of a residential investment property in Athlone, County Westmeath. The judge also declined to direct that the two cases be heard together.
Martin O’Donoghue brought his case under section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Act 2009, which allows a co-owner of land to seek orders including a sale and distribution of proceeds. He says trust between the brothers has broken down and seeks a sale of the property. He has said the net proceeds should be divided equally. His claim that Thomas had failed to account for all rents is an allegation, not a finding in this judgment.
Thomas’s separate proceedings concern Enodare Limited, which the brothers jointly own. He alleges Martin improperly removed company assets and intellectual property, causing financial and other harm. Martin denies those allegations. The judge did not determine the merits of either brother’s claims. He noted that the company case, as framed, concerns alleged conduct as a director and ownership of intellectual property, while the property case concerns whether the jointly owned land should be sold and on what terms.
Thomas argued that the brothers’ three investments—including a second property in France—formed part of a unified investment strategy, with resources moving between them. He said combining the cases could save time and cost and reduce the risk of inconsistent outcomes. Martin disputed that there was such a strategy and argued the cases raised different issues, with consolidation likely to delay and increase the cost of his property claim.
The judge said the shared parties and Thomas’s asserted connection between the investments gave consolidation some initial appeal. But the asserted strategy was disputed and did not establish, at this stage, that the cases had common factual or legal questions warranting consolidation. The property’s ownership was not in dispute, and its ownership or sale did not appear relevant to the alleged wrongdoing in the Enodare proceedings.
The judge also said Thomas could not require Martin to retain his interest in the property as security for a possible damages award. The property application may later be adjourned or any sale proceeds distributed on terms informed by issues in the company case, but the court found no present basis to combine the proceedings or direct a joint hearing.
The matter was listed for 9 December 2024 in the Chancery Special Summons list to address costs and set directions for the property proceedings.