The High Court found that John Kane was the beneficial owner of a former public house in Stradone, Co Cavan, registered to his wife, Lucy Kane. It did not appoint a receiver over the property at this stage, directing the Revenue Commissioners to provide updated evidence before making a final decision.
The application arose from a €4,941,997.52 judgment obtained by the Collector General of the Revenue Commissioners against Mr Kane in 2009 for unpaid VAT and interest. The judgment remained partially unsatisfied when the application was brought. Revenue sought a receiver by way of equitable execution, arguing that Mr Kane had provided the money to buy the property and was its true beneficial owner.
Ms Kane said she bought it for €42,000 in 2015 using her own funds, including earnings, rental income, child benefit and proceeds from selling a tractor. The court considered affidavits and financial records submitted by both sides. It found that the evidence did not show she had accumulated enough savings from her employment, company directorship, rental income or child benefit to fund the purchase. It also rejected her account that a tractor sale had generated €25,000, finding that account not credible and accepting evidence that the tractor dealings were carried out by Mr Kane.
The court accepted Revenue Inspector John Magee’s evidence about the probable source of the purchase money, including funds moved through corporate entities. It found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Kane was the beneficial owner and that Ms Kane had not provided the purchase funds from her own resources. The court’s finding concerned beneficial ownership; Ms Kane was the property’s registered owner.
The court also refused Ms Kane’s request to adjourn the hearing so she could obtain legal aid. She provided no documentation confirming that aid had been granted, and the court noted that she had had time to seek representation after her solicitor came off record. It rejected her submission that Revenue was estopped from pursuing the application because of an earlier statement about her registered ownership of the Cavan property.
The ownership finding did not resolve whether a receiver should be appointed. Under Order 45, rule 9, the court had to consider the amount still owed, the likely sum recoverable from a sale and the probable costs of a receiver. The evidence before it did not establish how much had been recovered against the judgment or how much remained outstanding, nor the likely sale proceeds.
The court directed Revenue to file and serve an affidavit within three weeks setting out updated enforcement figures and evidence on the matters required under the rule. Ms Kane may respond within the following three weeks. The court said it would make its final determination and order after those steps. No receiver was appointed in this judgment.