Cork Corporation v Lynch

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Egan J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1995
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-HC 1878
• Docket Number: Circuit Court Record No. P13/1984
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1995

CORK CORPORATION v. LYNCH

on Circuit

THE LORD MAYOR ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE CITY OFCORK

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AND

THOMAS LYNCH

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

1985 WJSC-HC 1878

Circuit Court Record No. P13/1984

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

Ejectment

Right of action - Accrual - Adverse possession - Defendant trespasser's exclusive physical occupation - Period of occupation exceeding 12 years before plaintiff's action - Plaintiff corporation acquiring plot in 1965 - No rights of ownership exercised by plaintiff - Disputed plot used by defendant garage owner for storage of hire cars and damaged cars - Insufficient evidence of adverse possession by defendant to establish accrual of plaintiff's right of action - Judgment for defendant set aside - Statute of Limitations, 1957, ss. 13, 18 - (Circ. App. - Egan J. - 26/7/85) - [1995] 2 ILRM 598

|Corporation of Cork v. Lynch|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Adverse possession"

Limitation of actions - Ejectment - Accrual of right of action - Defendant's exclusive occupation insufficient to establish adverse possession - Judgment for defendant set aside - Statute of Limitations, 1957, ss. 13, 18 - (Circ. App. - Egan J. - 26/7/85).- [1995] 2 ILRM 598

|Corporation of Cork v. Lynch|

Citations:

LEIGH V JACK 5 EX 264

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S13(2)(a)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S18

WALLIS'S CAYTON BAY HOLIDAY CAMP LTD V SHELL-MEX & BP 1974 3 AER 575

1 JUDGMENT of Egan J., delivered the 26th day of July, 1985.

2 This action concerns a plot of land situate along Silverspring's Lane and Castle Avenue and abounding Lower Glanmire Road in the City of Cork. The pleadings are quite simple. The Plaintiff/Appellants (to whom I will refer as "the Corporation) have brought Ejectment, on the Title proceedings against the Defendant/Respondent in respect of the plot. The Defendant avers that he has been in possession of the said plot for upwards of 12 years without acknowledging the title of the Corporation thereto. He had also pleaded that the plot was not the property of the Corporation but, insofar as this plea could be taken as amounting to a denial of the "paper" title of the Corporation, it has been abandoned and the Corporation was not put on proof of its paper title. We are only concerned, therefore, with the applicability of the Statute of Limitations Act, 1957.

3 The disputed plot in this case adjoins a garage premises and forecourt acquired by the Defendant almost 30 years ago and since then occupied by him. The internal boundary consists of a wire fence. There is a natural boundary on the northern side of thedisputed plot. The western and southern bounderies consist of walls. There is no access to the disputed plot except through two gates along the internal boundary. The northern portion of the disputed plot (which is divided from the rest of it by a natural hedge) started to be used by the Defendant for the dumping of crashed cars shortly after the commencement of his garage business by the Defendant. Then around 1960 or 1961 the Defendant commenced to use the remainder of the disputed plot for the purpose of parking customers' cars and self-drive cars (as many as ...