The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by three purchasers who sought to add statutory receiver Frank Ryan as a defendant to their case over the sale of land at Kilmoney, Carrigaline, Co Cork.
The appeal concerned only whether Mr Ryan should be joined to the existing proceedings. The court did not decide whether the purchasers had a valid claim against him or whether the land tender process was improperly conducted.
Dwyer Properties Limited, which was in receivership, owned the lands. Mr Ryan was appointed receiver in August 2011. In early 2014, auctioneers Michael McKenna and Michael Pickett conducted a tender sale. The purchasers alleged that bidding continued after a noon deadline on 7 February, when they say they had the highest bid, and that a rival bidder was allowed to submit a higher offer. They also challenged whether the successful bidder had provided the required proof of funds. NAMA accepted the rival bid, and the land was sold to that bidder.
The purchasers claimed the tender process was governed by a collateral contract requiring fair evaluation and acceptance of the highest qualifying bid. They alleged that Mr Ryan knowingly misrepresented the tender outcome and had committed irregularities and breaches of statutory duties. Those allegations remain claims, not findings in this appeal. The judgment records that Mr Ryan had no direct involvement in how the auctioneers conducted the bidding and that there was no suggestion he knew at the time that bidding continued after noon. The source says those tender issues were matters for trial.
The High Court refused the joinder application in 2016. On appeal, the purchasers argued, among other things, that adding Mr Ryan was necessary to resolve the dispute and to avoid a later argument that they should have brought all claims together. The Court of Appeal said the existing case against Dwyer Properties was based on contract, while the proposed claims against Mr Ryan involved separate issues, including alleged negligence, misconduct and personal statutory liability. It found no demonstrated contractual relationship between the purchasers and Mr Ryan in relation to the contract pleaded against the company.
The court also accepted that adding the receiver would introduce new causes of action, increase costs and likely delay and lengthen the trial. The purchasers had not shown that Mr Ryan needed to be a party for the court to decide the issues in the existing case; he was likely to be a witness. The court said the refusal to join him did not prevent the purchasers from bringing separate proceedings against him. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s refusal in place.