The High Court ruled that receiver Anne O’Dwyer was entitled to rental arrears accrued up to her discharge on 31 July 2018, including rent An Post had paid into court during a dispute over who should receive it.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 10 April 2019, concerned a limited question in interpleader proceedings brought by An Post: whether Ms O’Dwyer could receive the funds lodged in court instead of being paid directly as rent. The court did not revisit whether Gulland Property Finance DAC was entitled to appoint her; no such challenge was made in these proceedings.
An Post had been a commercial tenant of Michael and Anthony Harrington for many years. It began the proceedings because it did not want to risk paying rent to the Harringtons, to an earlier receiver, or to Ms O’Dwyer while entitlement was contested. An interlocutory order required the rent to be paid into court pending the outcome of the related litigation.
Ms O’Dwyer was appointed receiver by Gulland in February 2017 and discharged by deed effective from 3pm on 31 July 2018. She argued that discharge did not extinguish her right to rents that had accrued during her appointment. The Harringtons argued that discharge ended her right to receive unpaid rents, relying on legal commentary and the English Court of Appeal decision in Curley v. Curley.
Justice Baker found that the discharge deed removed Ms O’Dwyer’s powers and responsibilities from the specified time, but did not expressly divest her of rights already accrued. The court held that the statutory and contractual powers to demand and recover rent included unpaid rent, and that non-payment did not extinguish the receiver’s accrued right.
The Harringtons also argued that money paid into court had changed character and was no longer rent, or was no longer in arrears. The judge rejected that argument. The money had been paid in place of rent to preserve the position while entitlement was disputed, not to discharge the tenant’s liability. It remained rent, although its beneficial owner had not yet been identified.
The court concluded that Ms O’Dwyer was entitled to the arrears up to the discharge date, including the money held in court. The ruling addressed that entitlement only; it did not determine other issues in the background proceedings.