Judge Orders Sale of Foxrock Home to Resolve Sibling Dispute

High Court Orders Sale of Foxrock Home to Break Sibling Deadlock

The High Court has intervened in a protracted and bitter family dispute, ordering the sale of a valuable inherited property in the affluent Dublin suburb of Foxrock. Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy ruled that a court-ordered sale was the only viable method to break an intractable deadlock between siblings who, despite all agreeing the house should be sold, could not agree on how to proceed. The judgment brings a decisive end to a stalemate that has seen the property fall into disrepair, threatening the very value of the inheritance left to them by their parents.

The case, Connolly & Anor v Connolly & Anor, shines a light on the legal remedies available when co-owners of a property cannot find common ground, and underscores the court’s reluctance to compel unwilling parties into speculative financial ventures. The dispute centred on a prime residential property in Foxrock, Dublin 18, which was transferred to the siblings by Deed of Assent in 2016 following their parents’ passing. While the shared goal was to sell the asset, a fundamental disagreement over the sales strategy created a deep schism within the family.

Two Competing Visions for the Family Home

The conflict presented two starkly different approaches to realising the property’s value. The applicants in the case argued for a conventional and transparent method: placing the house on the open market. This, they contended, would provide a straightforward sale, likely through an estate agent or auctioneer, allowing the market to determine its price and bringing a swift conclusion to the matter.

Conversely, the respondents, particularly the first respondent, championed a more complex and potentially more lucrative strategy. They believed the property’s true value lay not as a family home but as a development site. To this end, they had sourced expressions of interest from property developers. Their proposed method involved entering into an ‘option to buy’ agreement. This would grant a developer the exclusive right to purchase the property at an agreed price, but only if and when they successfully obtained planning permission for a new development on the site. This approach, they argued, could unlock a significantly higher sale price reflecting the land’s development potential.

However, the applicants were deeply dissatisfied with these contingent offers. An option agreement introduces considerable uncertainty and delay. The co-owners would receive no funds until planning permission was granted and the developer exercised the option, a process that could take years and had no guarantee of success. During this period, the property would remain in their ownership, with ongoing costs for maintenance and insurance, while its condition could continue to deteriorate.

Stalemate and Decline

As the siblings failed to reconcile their opposing views, the property became a casualty of their dispute. The court heard that the house had fallen into a state of disrepair, a situation that Mr Justice Mulcahy noted could “undermine the value in the Property”. The impasse meant that crucial decisions regarding its upkeep and maintenance could not be agreed upon, leading to a slow decay that threatened to diminish the inheritance for all parties involved.

Frustrated by the deadlock, the applicants initiated High Court proceedings, seeking a judicial order for the sale of the property under Section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. This legislation grants the court broad powers to make orders in relation to co-owned land, including ordering a sale, to resolve disputes between owners.

The Court’s Decisive Intervention

In his judgment, Mr Justice Mulcahy detailed the court’s repeated efforts to encourage the siblings to find an amicable solution. At a hearing in July 2025, the court had suggested they obtain an up-to-date valuation from an agreed-upon agent and had “repeatedly urged the parties to agree a way forward”.

An opinion on the property’s value was subsequently provided by the commercial real estate firm CBRE Ireland. This valuation took into account the very development potential that the respondents were keen to exploit, noting that similarly located properties had recently sold for prices reflecting such possibilities. The valuation was based on the property being offered for sale on the open market with vacant possession.

Despite this expert valuation, the first respondent remained steadfast in his opposition to an open market sale, continuing to advocate for negotiations with a developer for an option agreement. He asked the court to refuse the order for sale and instead direct the parties down his preferred path.

Mr Justice Mulcahy, however, focused on the profound risks associated with the developer-led option. He explained that in such an arrangement, the vendor carries significant risk. The potential for a greater financial return, he noted, “reflects the risk being taken.” He highlighted the inevitable delay before any of the co-owners would see a return on their inheritance and the speculative nature of the entire enterprise, which was contingent on the uncertain outcome of a planning application.

The judge concluded that it would be “wholly inappropriate to impose an obligation on the other parties to engage in such speculation against their wishes”. He noted that the first respondent had not advanced any pressing need to pursue this high-risk strategy. Citing legal principles from established case law, including Yippi Trading Ltd v Costello, the judge emphasised that while the court must consider any injustice an order may cause, the current situation was untenable.

He delivered a stark warning about the consequences of inaction: “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.”

A Path Forward

Ultimately, Mr Justice Mulcahy determined that the only way to break the impasse was to grant the order for sale sought by the applicants. However, he made it clear that the court would not “micro-manage the sales process”. He declined to nominate specific estate agents or solicitors, instead setting out a framework for a professional and orderly sale.

The judge indicated his view that an experienced solicitor should be given carriage of the sale, and that the property should be sold through an experienced auctioneer or estate agent. The precise method of sale—whether by private treaty, auction, or another means—would be a matter for that experienced agent to advise upon. The court proposed to make the formal order for sale pursuant to s.31(2)(c) of the 2009 Act, finally providing a clear path forward for the disposition of the family’s asset and bringing the long-running and damaging dispute to a close.