Christopher McGuinness v Francis McGuinness
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Kinlen J |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | 2002 WJSC-HC 5071 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 145 CA/2001 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 19 March 2002 |
2002 WJSC-HC 5071
THE HIGH COURT
and
BETWEEN:
AND
Synopsis:
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
Adverse possession
Licence - Whether defendant acted to his detriment - Proof of detriment Adverse possession - Whether defendant entitled to declaration that he is entitled to beneficial ownership of property (2001/145CA - Kinlen J - 19/3/2002)
McGuinness v McGuinness
Facts: the plaintiff had allowed his son, the defendant, to use part of his yard for around 20 years to store vehicles but that he had revoked this licence subsequently and sought to have the defendant prevented from entering on or using the land. The defendant counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that he was entitled to full beneficial ownership of the property on the grounds that he was brought back from England on an express representation and warranty that he would have sole and exclusive right to the use of the premises and that he acted to his detriment on foot of those representations. The Circuit Court ordered that the defendant remove all vehicles from the plaintiff's premises.
Held by Kinlen J in declaring that the defendant had acquired by adverse possession a portion of the property in dispute but that the defendant had not made out his claim for title to the property by virtue of promissory estoppel that, to establish promissory estoppel a material detriment in reliance on a promise of entitlement to land must be proved. However, detriment cannot be assumed and must be proved as a matter of probability. The alleged detriment had not been proven as the supporting evidence did not corroborate the defendant's claim in that respect.
Kinlen J on the 19th day of March 2002
This is an appeal from the order of the Circuit Court Judge Devally made on the 30th March, 2001.
The proceedings were commenced by Equity Civil Bill Record No. 1328 and dated the 5th February, 1999. The plaintiff is a retired bus driver. The lands involved in this action comprised and contained in Folio 3146L in the Register of Leaseholders. County Dublin together with adjoining lands which are situated at Nevinstown West, Cloghran, Swords, Co. Dublin.
This Court has visited the premises accompanied by a lawyer from both sides. The premises are on the main Dublin/Belfast road near the junction to Dublin Airport. As one travels from Dublin there is an entrance into the property which leads into an area covered by motor vehicles of varying sizes, breeds and physical conditions. Further north is another entrance leading into the same area and the same user. This is pitched beside the bungalow of the family dwelling of the plaintiff.
The defendant is a son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff resides alone at the premises, already mentioned. He is divorced from his wife who has a 2/5th interest in the property.
The plaintiff had a part time business and hobby of dealing in second hand and antique motor vehicles on the said premises. He parked and stored vehicles in this yard or area within the catchment area of the said premises. His health has deteriorated with age. He has been unable to continue with the said part time business and hobby which was at one time and apparently now is profitable although it has also known lean years. The defendant with his brothers assisted the plaintiff in this business and hobby. At one stage there were three brothers involved including the defendant. However, the defendant then emigrated to England. Unfortunately this is a dysfunctional family. There are faults on both sides. The plaintiff ran his business with two sons who were at one time living in caravans on the site or at least one of them was. Either they fell out with their father, or he with them. There is much confusing and contradictory evidence regarding the plaintiff's desire to have the defendant return from England to take over the premises. The plaintiff had parted company with his other two sons and undoubtedly wanted the defendant to return. However he maintains that he only gave him a licence to store mechanical vehicles at the premises and that he revoked this licence subsequently and that by placing his vehicles on the property he is creating and maintaining a nuisance. The relief sought is a declaration, that the defendant is not entitled to enter on to or use the premises and seeks and injunction and damages for trespass, nuisance, loss of enjoyment, inconvenience and expense. The defence filed is a traverse. It is acknowledged that the plaintiff together with two of his sons, brothers of the defendant, carried on the business of buying and selling commercial vehicles up to or in or around 1984. He has alleged that the business was run at a considerable loss. However at the specific request that the defendant returned from England to take over the running of the business on the assurance that he would have control of the business, that he would have sole and exclusive use of the said premises and that the said premises and business would be devised to him on the death of the plaintiff. The defendant relies on the doctrine of estoppel. In the alternative there is a plea, that the defendant's possession is adverse to the plaintiff's title. The defendant brings a counterclaim, seeking a declaration that he is entitled to full beneficial ownership of the property based on the fact that he was brought back from England on an express representation and warranty that he would have sole and exclusive right to the use of the said premises and that he acted to his detriment on foot of the aforementioned representations. The Circuit Court orders that the defendant remove all vehicles from the plaintiff's premises within one month from the 30th March, 2001. The Court refused a stay pending the appeal. A further order was required due to the failure of the defendant to appeal within time.
In fact the appeal turned on the defendant's counterclaim and in evidence only in the claim to promissory estoppel has been pursued as well as a claim of adverse possession.
While there are many reported cases each depends on its specific facts. While this Court is quite clear as to the issues involved in the case and has carefully considered all the evidence and has visited the site with legal representatives of both parties, it must be conceded that there had been excellent submissions made by the lawyers on both sides so out of respect to these submissions the Court did carefully consider them and reserved judgment. However the important thing is that basically it is a question of fact rather than law. The facts must be ascertained and the appropriate legal principles applied to them. Many of the authorities cited do not appear to this Court to be relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial