The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by three brothers against approval of the €3.45 million sale of partnership farmland in County Meath. The court held that, after the public auction failed, the court-appointed auctioneer could negotiate with interested buyers, subject to court approval.
The dispute concerned about 448 acres jointly owned by David Rickard, his mother and his three brothers. After their mother died in 2006, David Rickard sought to end the farming partnership and realise his share. The partnership was declared terminated in December 2010, and the High Court ordered the lands sold by public auction in June 2013.
The auction took place on 29 September 2015. Apart from a €1 bid for each lot, there were no bids. After the auction ended, five interested parties approached the auctioneer and a bidding process followed. Agreements for three lots were signed, subject to court approval, at a total price of €3.45 million.
The High Court approved the sale and refused the brothers’ requests to cross-examine the auctioneer and the plaintiff’s solicitor. The brothers argued that post-auction negotiations were unauthorised and unfair because other potential buyers had been excluded. They also said the lands might have fetched more and challenged the short period given to one brother to demonstrate his ability to buy a parcel.
The Court of Appeal found the auctioneer had implicit authority to negotiate after an unsuccessful auction and agree a sale subject to court approval. It said the brothers had not produced evidence of impropriety or expert evidence that the agreed price was an undervalue, nor identified a buyer willing to pay more. The court also noted that one brother, who said he was interested in a parcel, did not bid at auction or join the negotiations despite knowing they were under way.
The court upheld the refusal to allow cross-examination, concluding there were no factual conflicts that needed to be resolved that way. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s approval of the sale in place. The judgment did not itself order a new sale or determine any additional terms beyond the orders under appeal.