The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Kane’s appeal concerning a receiver appointed over a former licensed premises in County Cavan, ruling that the appeal was bound to fail and was an abuse of process.
The appeal arose from a High Court order appointing a receiver over The Bent Elbow, a property registered to Lucy Pinfold. The High Court found that Pinfold had not paid for the property from her own resources and that Kane was its beneficial owner. The Revenue Commissioners said Kane had bought it with money from his motor sales and repair business and had placed it in Pinfold’s name to put it beyond creditors’ reach. Those were the Revenue Commissioners’ allegations; the High Court’s ownership conclusion followed its assessment of the evidence.
Kane’s notice of appeal argued that the High Court judge had ignored a wife’s right to half of her husband’s income and that Pinfold was entitled to a share of the property. He also relied on the constitutional protection of the family. The appeal court noted that Pinfold had argued in the High Court that she bought the property using her own savings and the proceeds of a tractor sale, and had not claimed that Kane’s income funded the purchase.
The Court of Appeal said Pinfold, who did not appeal the High Court finding, was the person with standing to challenge the finding that she had no beneficial interest. Kane could not appeal on her behalf. It also found that Kane had been served with the receivership application and had an opportunity to file evidence, contest the Revenue’s evidence, seek cross-examination and make submissions. He did not participate in the High Court proceedings.
The court held that Kane could not raise new factual arguments on appeal when he had not put forward evidence or an alternative account of the purchase funds in the High Court. It found no exceptional circumstances that would justify allowing the new arguments. The court also rejected the claim that registration of Pinfold as legal owner, by itself, prevented Kane from having a beneficial interest.
The court did not need to decide broader questions about whether constitutional protection of the family could extend to an unmarried couple. It said the appeal raised no established automatic right for a spouse to half of property beneficially owned by the other spouse, and cited a Supreme Court decision rejecting an equivalent claim based on Article 41.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal. The receivership order remained in place.