Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
Unjust enrichment in Ireland
David Capper *
CASES
Northern Ireland
94. Larmour (Brent) v Larmour (Joan) [2023] NICh 4 (NI HC, ChD, McBride J)
Partition—whether discretion to refuse order for sale or partition in lieu of sale
The parties were a mother and son who had purchased their East Belfast Northern Ireland Housing Executive home in joint names in 2002. The son, the claimant in these proceedings, had married and moved out of the property. The mother, the defendant in the proceedings, suffered from dementia and was in a relationship with a gentleman who lived in Carnlough, County Antrim. The parties were estranged and the claimant brought these proceedings seeking to force a sale of the property so that he could more effectively utilise his half share. The defendant, through her controller ad interim, opposed this as detrimental to her welfare. If she had to move house, she would become disorientated and unable to find her way to and from local shops. Her partner’s home in Carnlough was not suitably adapted for her to live there on a permanent basis.
The issues before the court were: (1) whether the court had discretion to refuse both an order for partition and an order for sale under the Partition Acts 1868 and 1876; and (2) if not, whether the court could impose a stay, suspension or conditions on an order for sale pursuant to the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, Art.49.
Held: (1) Partition of the property was impracticable, so the issue was whether there should be an order for sale in lieu of partition. The court did not have discretion to refuse both partition and sale in lieu of partition, even where there was no financial hardship for the applicant and significant detriment for the respondent. But (2) the effect of an immediate sale on the defendant’s mental health and the absence of any financial hardship to the claimant merited a stay of the order for sale until such time as the defendant was medically certified as unable to reside in the property on her own with the benefit of a domiciliary care package. Further conditions were imposed on both parties with respect to the upkeep of the property, paying the mortgage, restrictions on the claimant entering the property and division of proceeds of sale of the property. The judge also noted that the social workers should consider the need to obtain a court order to exclude the claimant from the property and the street to stop further harassment by the claimant.
Unjust enrichment in Ireland
519