The Court of Appeal has awarded a Westmeath farmer €30,000 after finding that receivers were invalidly appointed over lands covered by a 2004 mortgage and remained in place for almost six years.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2022, Ms Justice Máire Whelan said the appointment of Aengus Burns and Michael McAteer under the 2004 mortgage was void from the outset. The court ordered the first three respondents—Burns, McAteer and Grant Thornton—to pay the damages jointly and severally.
The dispute arose after Ulster Bank appointed Burns and McAteer as receivers on 6 February 2013 under three mortgage instruments: one dated 12 October 2004 and two dated 12 March 2009. The farmer, Oliver Donlon, received demand letters the following day. The High Court had already ruled that the appointment under the 2004 mortgage was invalid because the mortgage required a demand before its enforcement powers could be exercised. It upheld the appointments under the 2009 mortgages.
The appeal court did not revisit the 2009 rulings. Donlon’s appeal arguments on those instruments included points that had not been properly argued at trial, and the court said it would be unfair to determine them for the first time on appeal. It expressed no view on whether advance notice was required under the 2009 mortgages.
The Court of Appeal found that the 2004 appointment covered lands including Folio 11713F and parcels at Ballynagarbry and Toorphelim. It said the receivers’ appointment and subsequent letters referring to bringing some of the lands to market amounted to interference with Donlon’s exclusive possession. The judgment also criticised the receivers for maintaining their position for years after the appointment’s validity was challenged.
The court set aside the High Court’s costs order. It awarded Donlon his appeal costs and his expenses for the High Court proceedings against the first three respondents. No costs were ordered for either side in respect of several motions. Proceedings against the fourth respondent, O’Brien Lynam Solicitors, were struck out with no order. The court invited any party seeking a different costs order to file written submissions within 14 days.