Developer vs open-market sibling squabble

A briefing note on the website of Lavelle Partners explains the significance of the recent Connolly v Connolly [2026]   High Court ruling on selling a co-owned property when agreement has broken down.

This question was examined by the High Court in Ronan Connolly and Carol Dillon v Matthew James Connolly and Ann O’Connor [2026] IEHC 10, a judgment of Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy delivered on 12 January, writes Denise Dockery of Lavelle Partners LLP.

 Background

Four siblings inherited a residential property in Foxrock, Dublin 18 from their parents under a Deed of Assent dated 15 February 2022.

While all parties agreed that the property should be sold, they could not agree how it should be sold. 

As a result, two of the siblings issued a special summons seeking an order for sale under section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

Section 31 of the act allows any co-owner of land to apply to the court for a range of remedies, including:

• Partition of land,
• Sale of land and distribution of proceeds,
• Accounting adjustments between co-owners, and
• Any other order the court considers just and equitable.

The jurisdiction is discretionary, and the court may impose conditions, combine orders, or dismiss the application entirely.

The dispute

The respondents wished to pursue conditional offers from developers, including options to purchase subject to planning permission. 

The applicants opposed accepting speculative or conditional offers and sought a straightforward open-market sale.

The parties jointly instructed CBRE Ireland to provide an updated valuation.

CBRE highlighted the property’s development potential, the Lavelle Partners briefing notes explains.

CBRE advised that it be marketed on the open market with vacant possession.

In affidavits, three of the four siblings then proposed different sale mechanisms, including:

• Dual marketing strategies,
• Minimum reserve prices,
• Appointment (or non-appointment) of estate agents,
• Appointment of the family solicitor, and
• Sale by auction versus sale following the grant of planning permission.

High Court decision

Mr Justice Mulcahy found that continued delay risked the property falling into further disrepair, undermining its value.

He further found that it would be inappropriate to compel unwilling co-owners to accept conditional or speculative developer offers.

The only effective way to break the deadlock was to order a sale under section 31(2)(c) of the 2009 act.

While the court declined to appoint specific solicitors or estate agents, it said it would have no difficulty expressing a clear view that:

• An experienced solicitor and estate agent should be engaged, and
• Attempting to sell a property of this value without professional assistance was fraught with risk and likely to generate further disputes.

The court therefore ordered the sale and adjourned the matter to 29 January to finalise ancillary orders.

Wider legal context

The judgment aligns with earlier case law, the briefing note explains, including Yippi Trading Ltd v Costello [2013] where the court refused partition due to practical and planning complications.

As Mr Justice Ryan noted in that case, while courts recognise that shared ownership can become unworkable, not every dispute justifies radical intervention.

Considerations

When exercising its discretion under section 31 of the 2009 act, the court will consider:

• The extent to which co-ownership relations have irretrievably broken down,
• Constitutional considerations, particularly in cases involving a family home,
• The objectives of the Family Home Protection Act 1976,
• Whether partition is practically and legally feasible, including planning implications,
• The impact of a sale on judgment creditors and non-debtor spouses,
• Whether a sale would result in manifest injustice to any party.

Conclusion

Lavell Partners points out that this case underscores the importance of planning for potential disagreements at the outset of a co-owned property sale.

Co-owners should be encouraged to enter into a co-ownership agreement clearly addressing:

• Sale mechanisms,
• Dispute resolution,
• Valuation methods, and
• Exit strategies.

While section 31 of the 2009 act provides a powerful remedy where co-ownership reaches a stalemate, court intervention should remain a last resort.  

Early agreement can preserve both the value of the asset, and family relationships, while helping to ensure that real estate remains a good investment.