Case Study: Ronan Connolly and Carol Dillon v Matthew James Connolly and Ann O’Connor
The case of Ronan Connolly and Carol Dillon v Matthew James Connolly and Ann O’Connor provides a compelling illustration of the challenges that arise when co-ownership agreements are absent. This case, heard in the high court on the 12th January 2026, involved a dispute among family members over the sale of a co-owned property in Foxrock, Co Dublin. The property in question was held by the parties as tenants in common, meaning each co-owner held a distinct, undivided share of the property. While all parties agreed that the Property should be sold, they could not agree how it should be sold.
Background
The residence on Westminster Road was part of the significant estate belonging to the late Elizabeth and Matthew Connolly, who passed away in 2015 and 2016, respectively, just six months apart. The family home was divided equally among their four adult children. Two of these children, Ronan Connolly and Carol Dillon, contended that the property should be sold on the open market to the highest bidder, regardless of whether they were developers. Meanwhile, Matthew James Connolly and Ann O’Connor had secured purchase offers that were contingent upon a developer receiving planning permission.
In a ruling released this week, Mr. Justice Rory Mulcahy approved a request from Ronan Connolly and Ms. Dillon to issue a sale order under the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The other two siblings were named as respondents to this application.
The main point of contention between the parties was that the expressions of interest received by the respondents from certain developers were based on the premise of acquiring an option to purchase at a specified price, with the sale only finalized once the developer secured planning permission. The applicants found these contingent offers unacceptable.
The judge noted a November 2025 valuation by CBRE, which highlighted the land’s development potential and indicated that similarly located properties had sold for prices that reflected that potential. He remarked that if an order for sale were not granted, the ongoing dispute regarding the sale process could persist indefinitely, contrary to the preferences of all parties involved, and could jeopardize the property’s value if it deteriorated further or if an agreement on its upkeep could not be achieved.
Regarding Matthew James Connolly’s desire to consider conditional offers, the judge pointed out that such offers inherently involve a degree of risk for the seller and would lead to unavoidable delays before any financial return could be realized. He stated it would be “wholly inappropriate” to compel the other parties to engage in such speculation against their will. Furthermore, it would not be just or equitable to grant the request made by Matthew James Connolly for the co-owners to enter into an option agreement with a buyer.
He stated that the “only solution to resolve the deadlock” among the co-owners was to mandate the sale of the property. He believed that an experienced solicitor should oversee the sale process, which should be conducted through a qualified solicitor or estate agent.
The core of the dispute lay in the fact that the parties could not agree how the property should be sold. Crucially, there was no pre-existing co ownership agreement that governed such a scenario once the property had passed to the four siblings under a Deed of Assent. This absence meant that in this case where there was a difference of opinion between the parties they then had to resort to litigation to resolve their differences, incurring significant legal costs not to mention the destruction of the family unit and and emotional distress.
The Judgement
The court, in this instance, had to weigh the various interests of the co-owners. It considered the financial implications for each party, their reasons for wanting or not wanting to sell, and the overall practicality of either partitioning the property or ordering its sale. The judgment ultimately highlighted the court’s role in stepping in to resolve disputes where co-owners have failed to establish their own clear framework for managing and disposing of their shared asset. While the specific details of the court’s final order would depend on the unique facts and evidence presented, the case underscores the fundamental principle that without an agreement, co-owners are at the mercy of judicial discretion when disagreements arise.
Estate planning is a critical process that involves arranging for the management and disposal of a person’s estate during their lifetime and after death. It encompasses a range of legal instruments and strategies designed to ensure that assets are distributed according to one’s wishes, while also minimizing taxes, fees, and potential disputes among beneficiaries.
Probate, on the other hand, is the legal process through which a deceased person’s will is proved valid in court, and their estate is administered and distributed. While often intertwined, probate disputes can arise when there are challenges to the will’s validity, disagreements over asset distribution, or concerns about the executor’s conduct.
Effective estate planning is not merely about drafting a will; it’s a holistic approach to managing one’s financial and personal affairs. A well-structured plan can prevent family conflicts, protect assets from creditors, and ensure continuity of care for dependents. Without a clear plan, the state’s intestacy laws will dictate how assets are distributed, which may not align with the deceased’s intentions.
If you are navigating the complexities of estate planning or facing a probate dispute, the experienced team at Sherwin O’Riordan Solicitors can provide the expert legal assistance and guidance you need. Their deep understanding Probate & Estate Planning, including the Conveyancing Act and the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act, combined with their expertise in handling intricate property transactions and disputes, makes them well-equipped to protect your interests and ensure your wishes are upheld.
Contact Sherwin O’Riordan Solicitors today to discuss your specific needs and secure peace of mind for your future and your legacy.
If you would like an immediate call back to discuss any queries, just fill in your details below. All correspondence is treated as confidential.
