The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Mark Rickard against an order appointing a receiver to collect payments he may become entitled to under the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS). The court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to make the order and that it was an appropriate exercise of its discretion on the facts before it.
ACC Loan Management Limited obtained judgment against Mark Rickard and Gerard Rickard in February 2011 for €1,064,747.66. The brothers farm lands in County Meath. In October 2011, the High Court appointed a receiver over payments due to Mark Rickard under the Single Payment Scheme, to be applied towards the judgment and costs. By June 2015, the receiver had received €525,877.40 from the Department of Agriculture.
The Single Payment Scheme ended in 2014 and was replaced by the BPS. ACC applied to vary the receiver order to cover payments under the new scheme. It said €820,686.44 remained outstanding on the judgment. The High Court granted the variation in July 2015. On appeal, the Court of Appeal treated that order in substance as a standalone appointment over BPS payments, rather than simply a continuation of the earlier order.
Mark Rickard argued that a receiver could be appointed only over equitable interests in property, not legal interests. He also argued that BPS payments were akin to wages or earnings, and that a receiver could not be appointed over future payments.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments in this case. It concluded that the statutory jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution was not confined to equitable interests. The remedy could be available where the nature of the property or another hindrance meant ordinary legal execution was unavailable.
The court distinguished BPS payments from future wages. The scheme required an applicant to qualify as an active farmer and declare eligible hectares used and managed for agricultural activity. The court viewed the payment as an income supplement tied to eligible land, rather than pay for personal work. It also noted that the appellant had not said the payments were his sole income or that their loss would prevent him earning a living through farming.
The court further held that a receiver could collect future receipts arising from an existing asset or property right, here the appellant’s conditional legal entitlement to BPS payments. The ruling was limited to receipts from that existing right. The court said it was not approving a receiver over damages in a personal injury claim, an issue it considered raises separate questions.
The appeal was dismissed. The decision did not determine broader questions about other types of future debts or payments.