Official Receiver for Northern Ireland v Stranaghan (Samuel David)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Hart J |
| Judgment Date | 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NICh 8 |
| Date | 20 May 2010 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NICh 8 Ref:
HAR7853
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
20/5/2010
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
CHANCERY DIVISION (BANKRUPTCY)
_________
RE: RICHARD ANDREW McVEIGH (BANKRUPT)
_______
BETWEEN:
THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Applicant;
-and-
SAMUEL DAVID STRANAGHAN
Respondent.
________
HART J
[1] This is an appeal by Mr Stranaghan from the decision of Master Kelly
that a mortgage executed by Richard Andrew McVeigh (a bankrupt) in favour
of Mr Stranaghan in respect of premises at 6 Grannard Park, Belfast was void
because it was a transaction at an undervalue within Article 312(3)(c) of The
Insolvency (NI) Order 1989, and as a result the Official Receiver was entitled
to the net proceeds of the sale of the premises after deduction of a mortgage in
favour of the Bank of Scotland.
[2] Mr Stranaghan is the uncle of the bankrupt, and on 22 November 2000
he advanced the sum of £75,000 to his nephew to enable him to purchase the
premises, and they were purchased by an assignment dated 24 January 2001.
[3] In November 2003 McVeigh offered to re-mortgage the premises and to
repay his uncle £80,000, being the loan of £75,000 together with a further
£5,000 of interest on the amount advanced. However, nothing came of this.
[4] In paragraph 6 of his affidavit Mr Stranaghan described how he
contacted his solicitor on 17 December 2003 “indicating that I would like to
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Sidhu
...way in which it treated the money” and sought to rely on Re McVeigh (a Bankrupt): The Official Receiver of Northern Ireland v Stranaghan [2010] NICh 8. The Tribunal noted the striking difference between that case and the particular circumstances under consideration and stated, “We simply do......