The Supreme Court has upheld an order appointing a receiver over payments due to farmer Mark Rickard under the EU Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), dismissing his appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 9 May 2019, concerned enforcement of a €1,064,747.66 judgment made by the High Court in 2011 against Mark Rickard and his brother Gerard. The brothers had consented to judgment, and the debt remained unpaid. The Supreme Court heard that ACC Loan Management Limited DAC had received €525,877.40 under an earlier receiver order by June 2015, while €820,686.44 remained outstanding at that time.
In 2011, the High Court appointed a receiver over payments Mark Rickard was due under the EU Single Payment Scheme (SPS). After that scheme ended, the High Court varied the order in July 2015 to cover payments under the successor BPS. The Court of Appeal dismissed Rickard’s appeal in 2017.
Rickard argued that a receiver could be appointed only over equitable interests that could not be reached by ordinary legal enforcement. He also argued the BPS payments were akin to earnings, that future payments could not be captured, and that the creditor should first have pursued other enforcement remedies. The Supreme Court considered the history and scope of the court’s power to appoint receivers, including whether the law was confined by older practice.
The Court held that BPS entitlements were not salary for work. Rickard had no accrued right to a specific payment, but did have an intangible property right to claim an entitlement from the Department. The Court said the statutory power to appoint a receiver where it is “just or convenient” could be applied in light of present conditions, while stressing that it was not unlimited and must be exercised justly on the facts of each case.
A debtor seeking to oppose such an order must provide full and candid evidence about its effect, the judgment said. Rickard had not provided a statement of affairs or evidence that the receiver order would be unjust or unsustainable for him. The Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgments and the receiver order. It did not establish that receivers should be appointed over every future payment; the decision emphasized the need for a case-specific assessment and attention to possible effects on debtors and third parties.