The High Court has directed the sale of a house in Ballyfermot, Dublin 10, in a dispute between brothers over a debt established by earlier court orders.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore granted the relief sought by Thomas Manning in a special summons issued in June 2022. He said the order would direct the sale of the property, with necessary ancillary orders. The matter was listed for mention on 11 December 2023 so the parties could provide an agreed order or make submissions about its precise form.
The judgment concerned 85 Ballyfermot Crescent, which had been bequeathed to John Manning by the brothers’ father. Thomas sought its sale to recover sums due under prior court awards.
The dispute arose from a failed company venture whose debts were guaranteed by both brothers. In 2010, John gave Thomas an indemnity against liabilities connected with the company’s debts. In February 2014, by consent, the High Court ordered John to pay Thomas €117,185.67, representing the amount then owing to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited. Other sums were also awarded in related proceedings.
Thomas registered the 2014 judgment against three properties, including the Ballyfermot house and a jointly owned property at Mullaghboy, County Meath. Mullaghboy was sold in 2017, and the net proceeds—about €119,000—went to Ulster Bank. The judgment said the sale came close to clearing the bank debt, though a balance of about €8,000 remained in April 2021.
John argued that the bank debt had been paid without loss to Thomas and that ordering the Ballyfermot sale would unjustly enrich him. The judge rejected those arguments. He reasoned that using proceeds from a jointly owned asset to pay the bank had cost Thomas his share of the net proceeds. The evidence did not establish the extent of any alleged undervalue in the Mullaghboy sale.
The judge said the 2014 consent order had left John liable to Thomas for the full amount, without a mechanism to reduce it if the bank debt was later paid from another source. Refusing a sale on that basis would, in effect, rewrite arrangements already embodied in a court order. John’s proposed sale of his family home to meet the bank debt had not proceeded and did not provide a good reason to refuse the relief.
The court found Thomas had made out the required proofs and that John had not shown a good reason why the sale should not be ordered. The judgment did not settle the precise form of the sale order; that remained for agreement or further submissions.