McQuillan v Maguire

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Costello
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1995 WJSC-HC 5085
• Docket Number: 9892p/1991
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1996

MCQUILLAN v. MAGUIRE

ROBERT McQUILLAN AND JANE McQUILLAN

Plaintiffs

and

JAMES AUSTIN MAGUIRE AND ELLEN CORA MAGUIRE

Defendants

1995 WJSC-HC 5085

9892p/1991

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

FRAUD

Agreement

Effect - Creditor - Frustration - Husband - Judgment debtor - Wife's claim to beneficial ownership of property vested in husband - Husband's acceptance of claim - Declaration by court that wife so entitled - Registration by judgment creditor of statutory affidavit affecting husband's estate in property - Spouses" agreement rendered void by statute - Subsequent declaration in creditor's action that judgment mortgage captured husband's partial interest in the property - (1991/9892 P - Costello P. - 10/11/95) - [1996] 1 ILRM 394

|McQuillan v. Maguire|

HUSBAND AND WIFE

Property

Ownership - House - Acquisition - Expenses - Wife - Contribution - Wife entitled to beneficial interest in moiety of property - (1991/9892 P - Costello P. - 10/11/95) - [1996] 1 ILRM 394

|McQuillan v. Maguire|

REAL PROPERTY

Agreement

Fraud - Purpose - Creditor - Frustration - House - Premises vested in husband - Judgment recovered against husband - Wife's action claiming ownership of house - Wife's claim conceded by husband - Order declared wife's ownership - Registration of creditor's judgment as judgment mortgage against interest of husband after date of order - Creditor's action against husband and wife successful - Conveyancing Act, 1634, s. 3 - Judgment Mortgage (Ireland) Act, 1850, ss. 6, 7 - (1991/9892 P - Costello P. - 10/11/95) - [1996] 1 ILRM 394

|McQuillan v. Maguire|

Citations:

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE ACT 1634

MORONEY, IN RE 21 LR (IRL) 27

M C V M C 1986 ILRM 1

C V C 1976 IR 254

MARRIED WOMENS STATUS ACT 1957

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Costello delivered the 10 November 1995.

2 The plaintiff, Dr. McQuillan, and his wife owned a premises at 7, Herbert Place Dublin and engaged the first-named defendant, Mr. James Maguire, to renovate them. The work began in April 1980. Before it commenced the plaintiffs agreed to pay Mr. Maguire a sum between £15,000 and £20,000, depending on the amount of dry rot discovered in the premises. In July 1981 the plaintiffs were informed that a further sum of £10,000 (over and above a sum of £19,300 already paid) would be required and the work was ultimately completed in November 1981. In the following year Mr. Maguire did further work for the plaintiffs and in August 1982 a demand for sums due on this second contract and the balance due on the 7, Herbert Place contract amounting to approximately £29,000 was advanced. In the following year Mr. Maguire sued Dr. McQuillan and his wife and they counterclaimed for a substantial sum for damages in respect of alleged defective workmanship on the Herbert Place premises. A lodgment of £27,000 was accepted by Mr. Maguire in respect of his claim and the counterclaim proceeded for one day before Mr. Justice Murphy. It was then settled. On the 24 October 1990 a decree for £45,000 and costs was made in favour of Dr. McQuillan and his wife against Mr. Maguire. Mr. Maguire was the owner of premises at 40, Villiers Road, Rathgar and on the 27 July 1991 the plaintiffs converted the decree into a judgment mortgage over Mr. Maguire's interest in the Rathgar premises. No part of this judgment has been paid. The costs have been taxed (presumably in Mr. Maguire's absence) at the considerable sum of £35,545.40.

3 These present proceedings arise because of certain steps taken by Mr. Maguire and his wife in relation to the Rathgar premises. On the 19 November 1990 Mrs. Maguire (shortly after the consent decree had been given against her husband) instituted proceedings under the provisions of the Married Womans Status Act 1957against her husband and on the 18 January 1991 an order by consent was made declaring that Mrs. Maguire was entitled to the entire beneficial interest in the Rathgar premises and in the furniture chattels and effects therein. After Dr. McQuillan learnt of this order he and his wife instituted these present proceedings by summons of the 3 July 1991 joining Mrs. Maguire as defendants. Mrs. Maguire died last year and her personal representatives were represented at the hearing. The plaintiffs claim is for a declaration that Mr. Maguire was at all material times the beneficial owner of the Rathgar premises, and a declaration that the judgment mortgage is well charged on that beneficial interest. It is claimed that the order of the 18 January 1991 made in the Married Womans Status Act proceedings was obtained by collusion and with the intention to defraud the plaintiffs, that it should therefore be set aside.

4 The case made by the defendants in support of the claim that Mrs. Maguire was entitled to the...