The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against an order allowing a receiver to collect future payments due to a farmer under the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), up to the amount of an unpaid judgment debt.
The appeal concerned a High Court order varying a 2011 appointment of Judith Riordan as receiver over payments to the first defendant under the former Single Farm Payment Scheme (SFPS). The variation covered payments under the BPS, which replaced the SFPS. The Court of Appeal held that the conditions for appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution were met and dismissed the appeal.
The original judgment against the first defendant and a second defendant was €1,064,747.66. The judgment was obtained on consent. The receiver’s appointment was made in October 2011, and the defendants did not apply to vary it or appeal it. By April 2015, €525,877.40 had been received through the arrangement. The judgment debt remained substantially unpaid.
The first defendant argued that extending the order required a new application because the BPS differed from the old scheme. He also argued that a receiver could not be appointed over a right that was not yet a debt, and that other enforcement remedies should first have been tried. He said the payments were supplementary income. The respondent argued that the right to apply for BPS payments was a valuable right of action and that ordinary enforcement procedures could not reach payments before approval.
The court noted that the BPS replaced one payment with four, with a more targeted focus on agricultural policy goals. It found no evidence that the first defendant was unlikely to continue qualifying, and said payments under the new scheme were intended to be at a similar level to those under the former scheme. Until an application was made and approved, however, there was no specific debt against the Department that could be attached by a garnishee order.
The judgment held that the right to apply for BPS payments, and to pursue them if payment was refused after the conditions were met, was an equitable property right. It distinguished the payments from future wages or salary, which the cited authorities excluded from receivership. Given the scale of the remaining debt, the likely value of future payments and the lack of another practicable enforcement route, the court found it just and convenient to continue the receivership.
The order under appeal varied the 2011 appointment to cover BPS payments. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The source does not state that the appellate court made a separate costs order.