Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Connolly and Anor v Connolly and Anor (Approved)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicants and Respondents are adult siblings and co-owners of a residential property in The City ("the Property") inherited from their parents and transferred to them by deed on 15 February 2022. The siblings agreed the Property should be sold but disagreed on the mode of sale. The Applicants issued a special summons seeking an order for sale under section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. Three siblings represented themselves; the second Respondent had legal representation. The parties filed multiple affidavits describing a protracted dispute and evidence that the house has fallen into disrepair. The court adjourned a hearing to allow the parties to obtain an agreed, up-to-date opinion on value from Company A dated 26 November 2025. Following further affidavits and submissions, Judge Mulcahy delivered the opinion and indicated an order for final directions would be listed for 29 January 2026.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should make an order for sale of the Property pursuant to section 31(2)(c) of the 2009 Act.
- Whether the court should, under its section 31(2)(f) and (3) discretion, require the co-owners to enter into an option or other conditional agreement with a developer (i.e. compel acceptance of contingent offers).
- Whether and to what extent the court should attach detailed conditions to any order for sale (for example, nominating solicitors or agents or prescribing the marketing method).
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants' Arguments
- The Applicants seek an open-market sale of the Property on a vacant-possession basis and oppose contingent/option-based offers from developers.
- They prefer sale through the open market (to the highest bidder) and resist being obliged to accept speculative option arrangements that delay return and carry vendor risk.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Respondents (particularly the first Respondent) wish to entertain offers from developers that reflect the Property's development potential, including option/call-option arrangements linked to obtaining planning permission.
- The second Respondent supports selling on the open market but proposes conditions such as appointment of an independent selling agent, dual marketing (including to developers), and a minimum reserve; the first Respondent suggested renting pending sale and opposed sale by auction as potentially suboptimal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Company B v Company C [2013] IEHC 564 |
Illustrates the wide discretion conferred by the 2009 Act and that courts are generally sympathetic to s.31 applications while remaining mindful of disadvantages and complications (e.g. practicality of partition, planning implications). |
The court relied on the principle that s.31 confers broad discretionary powers and that partition may be impractical; used this to frame the exercise of discretion in deciding an order for sale and to caution against orders that would create additional complications. |
| Wylie on Irish Land Law (6th ed., Bloomsbury Professional, 2020 at 8.42) |
Provides guidelines on exercising the court's discretion under s.31, drawn largely from family-home and mortgage-Judgment contexts. |
The court referenced the author’s guidance to underscore the breadth of the s.31 discretion and to inform the approach to whether to attach conditions to a sale order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Mulcahy proceeded from the undisputed premise that the Applicants are persons entitled to apply under s.31 and that the co-owners cannot agree on the method of sale. The court accepted the factual foundation: the Property has development potential but has fallen into disrepair, creating urgency.
The court analysed the Respondents' proposal to entertain contingent option/call-option offers from developers and concluded such arrangements impose significant risk and delay on the vendor (co-owners) — e.g. risk of market decline or failure to obtain planning permission — and constitute speculative ventures. The court found it would be inappropriate and unjust to compel co-owners to participate in that speculation against their wishes.
Turning to statutory discretion, the court noted section 31(2)(f) and s.31(3) permit conditions to orders, but emphasised that the court should not micro-manage the sale process. While an experienced solicitor and auctioneer/estate agent should oversee the sale and the marketing should be informed by an experienced agent (which will include seeking expressions of interest from developers as part of open-market marketing), the court declined to nominate specific agents or solicitors or to prescribe detailed operational steps. The court relied on the parties’ agreed valuation opinion from Company A, which assessed value on an open-market vacant-possession basis taking development potential into account.
Accordingly, the court rejected the first Respondent's request that the co-owners be directed to enter into an option agreement with a developer and found the only practical means to break the impasse was an order for sale under s.31(2)(c).
Holding and Implications
ORDER FOR SALE MADE — The court determined it would make an order for sale of the Property pursuant to section 31(2)(c) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The court refused to order that the co-owners enter into a developer option agreement or otherwise be compelled to accept conditional offers.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Property will be sold on the open market under a court-ordered sale process; the court encouraged the parties to agree an experienced solicitor and estate agent/auctioneer to conduct the sale and declined to micro-manage appointments or marketing minutiae. No novel legal precedent was established; the decision applies established principles of s.31 discretion to the facts and resolves the parties’ dispute by ordering sale rather than imposing speculative, conditional transactions.
Click here to read the full judgment