About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 10
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy explained: “Absent an order directing that the Property be sold, this may continue interminably, contrary to the wishes of all involved, with the potential to undermine the value in the Property if it falls into further disrepair, or agreement cannot be reached on its continued maintenance.”

Background

In 2016, the applicants and respondents inherited and became co-owners of a residential property in Foxrock, Dublin 18 from their parents, it having been transferred to them by Deed of Assent.

Whilst all of the siblings agreed that the house should be sold, they could not agree on a mode of sale, leading to a protracted dispute during which the house fell into disrepair.

The respondents wished to entertain bids for the property from developers interested in its development potential, contending that the property would have greater value if sold as a development site.

In this regard, the expressions of interest from identified developers which the respondents wished to entertain were on the basis of developers requiring an ‘option to buy’ the property at a particular price, with a sale only being completed if and when the developer obtains planning permission.

The applicants were dissatisfied with the contingent offers made by the developers, and were desirous that the property would be sold on the open market.

In those circumstances, the applicants issued proceedings seeking an order for sale pursuant to s.31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

The High Court

Having considered the affidavits, Mr Justice Mulcahy noted that when the matter first came on for hearing in July 2025, the court had suggested that the parties would obtain an up-to-date opinion on value from an agreed agent and had “repeatedly urged the parties to agree a way forward”.

The judge considered the opinion, provided by CBRE Ireland, which took into account the development potential of the lands and that similarly located properties had sold for prices reflecting such potential in recent times, and which provided a value based on the property being offered on the open market for sale, on a vacant possession basis.

Turning to the affidavits of the parties filed in light of the CBRE opinion, the court explained that while the second respondent and second applicant agreed with CBRE’s assessment, the first respondent opposed the sale of the property by auction believing that a better price would be realised with the benefit of planning permission.

In those circumstances, the first respondent asked Mr Justice Mulcahy to refuse the order for sale and to direct the parties to enter into an option agreement, or negotiations, with a developer, and contended that it was not necessary to engage an estate agent.

Addressing s.31 of the 2009 Act, Mr Justice Mulcahy considered that s.31(2)(f) “appears to afford the court significant latitude in dealing with an application under section 31” and that insofar as the first respondent wished to accept a conditional offer to purchase the property, “any jurisdiction to make an order requiring them to do so would, it seems, fall to be made under that sub-section”.

Having regard to the guidelines on the exercise of the court’s discretion as set out in Wylie on Irish Land Law (6th ed., Bloomsbury Professional, 2020) and having regard to Yippi Trading Ltd v Costello [2013] IEHC 564, the court explained: “Though an eventual sale of the Property appears inevitable, the court must, however, be mindful of any disadvantages or complications of any order it makes. An order for sale may involve less scope for complication than the order for partition sought in Yippi Trading, but the court must consider any injustice which may arise.”

Mr Justice Mulcahy observed that absent an order for sale, the dispute between the parties could continue “interminably, contrary to the wishes of all involved, with the potential to undermine the value in the Property if it falls into further disrepair, or agreement cannot be reached on its continued maintenance”.

The court considered that when granting an option to buy, the vendor carries significant risks and that there would be inevitable delay before any return could be realised by the co-owners, highlighting; “The potential return may be greater, but that reflects the risk being taken.”

Finding that it “would, in my view be, wholly inappropriate to impose an obligation on the other parties to engage in such speculation against their wishes”, the court explained that no pressing need to consider that option had been advanced by the first respondent.

Accordingly, Mr Justice Mulcahy determined that the only way to break the impasse between the co-owners was to grant an order for sale, but declined to “micro-manage the sales process” by nominating estate agents or solicitors to manage the sale.

The judge indicated his view that an experienced solicitor should have carriage of the sale of the property and that the sale should take place through an experienced auctioneer or estate agent, with the method of selling the property to be advised by the experienced agent.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court proposed to make an order of sale pursuant to s.31(2)(c) of the 2009 Act.

Connolly & Anor v Connolly & Anor [2026] IEHC 10