The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a ruling setting aside two voluntary transfers of land from Michael Quigley to his wife, Alice Quigley. The appeal concerned whether Dana Doherty could be treated as a future creditor under section 10 of the Conveyancing Act (Ireland) 1634, even though she had not begun her damages proceedings when the transfers were made.
The transfers concerned land at Meenagowan, County Donegal, registered in Alice Quigley’s sole name on 26 February 1998, and the family home at Barnhill Park, Letterkenny, transferred on 21 March 2000. Both were made for “natural love and affection”, with no valuable consideration.
Doherty alleged that Michael Quigley had sexually abused her when she was a teenager in the 1980s. The trial judge found that he knew by 1991 that she was making that allegation, and that he was interviewed by gardaí after her first complaint in August 1993. The judge also found that he had reason to believe by the first transfer that Doherty might seek damages. The judgment records that proceedings began in December 2007 and that, in 2011, the High Court awarded her €400,000 in damages and costs.
The appellants accepted that Doherty had not yet obtained an award, begun proceedings or written to signal a damages claim when the transfers took place. They argued that she was therefore not a creditor within section 10 at those dates. Her solicitor first wrote to Michael Quigley about an intention to claim damages in 2005.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that section 10 covers future creditors where facts already in existence at the time of a transfer could lead to a later claim. The court relied on the trial judge’s findings about the alleged tortious acts, Doherty’s complaint and Michael Quigley’s interview, and concluded that Doherty could qualify as a future creditor despite the later timing of her damages award.
The court also upheld the finding that the transfers’ natural and probable consequence was to delay or defeat her as a creditor. It said the inference of fraudulent intent was correct on the facts, including that the transfers were for no valuable consideration, the trial judge rejected Alice Quigley’s explanations, and no evidence was given of other means available to meet a future award. The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not make a new damages award; the appeal was confined to the legal question about Doherty’s status under the 1634 Act.