Quinn v Property Registration Authority of Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IECA 231 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | [C.A. No. 222 of 2016],Neutral Citation Number: [2017] IECA 231 Record No. 2016/222 |
| Date | 27 July 2017 |
[2017] IECA 231
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Hogan J.
Ryan P.
Finlay Geoghegan J.
Hogan J.
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] IECA 231
Record No. 2016/222
IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTRATION TITLE ACT 1964 AND IN THE MATTER OF FOLIO MN3294F MONAGHAN
AND
AND
Statutory appeal – Land registration – Special circumstances – Appellants seeking to appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Titles – Whether appellants had established “special circumstances” within the meaning of Rule 159(9) of the Land Registration Rules 2012
Facts: The applicants/appellants, Mr and Ms Quinn, are a married couple who were litigants in person in a statutory appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Titles pursuant to s. 19 of the Registration of Titles Act 1964. That appeal was dismissed in the High Court by Abbott J in a judgment delivered on the 11th April 2016 ([2016] IEHC 212). The Quinns appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision.
Held by Hogan J that as the Quinns, on behalf of Cloughvalley Stores Ltd (the prior registered owner), had a legitimate interest in securing the instrument whereby the lands of the company were transferred by the registered chargee to a third party, they established “special circumstances” within the meaning of Rule 159(9) of the Land Registration Rules 2012 (S.I. No. 483 of 2012).
Hogan J held that he would accordingly allow the appeal and direct the respondent, the Property Registration Authority, to provide Mr and Ms Quinn with a certified copy of the relevant dealing instrument, subject to the payment of the appropriate fee (if any).
Appeal allowed.
In one of the earliest reserved judgments delivered by the Supreme Court following its establishment in June 1924, Re Fitzgerald [1925] 1 I.R. 39, O'Connor J. described the appeal in that case as one of ‘some importance’ because ( [1925] 1 I.R. 39, 44) it raised the question:
‘whether the register of lands is a public document open to the inspection of any member of the public, or only to those who appear from the register to have some estate or interest in the registered lands, or those who can show that the estate has devolved upon them in some way.’
This is almost precisely the same issue which this Court now has to address under slightly altered statutory circumstances close on a century later. The issue arises in the following way.
Rule 159(1) of the Land Registration Rules 2012 (S.I. No. 483 of 2012) (‘the 2012 Rules’) provides that the only persons entitled to inspect a document filed in the Registry are:
(i) the registered owner of the property in question;
(ii) any person authorised by the registered owner of that property;
(iii) any person authorised by a court order; and
(iv) any person authorised by the 2012 Rules.
The present appeal turns in large part on the interpretation of Rule 159(9) of the 2012 Rules:
‘The Authority may, in special circumstances and on such terms as it shall think fit, permit a person to inspect or obtain a copy of a document filed in the Registry.’
The applicants, Mr. and Ms. Quinn, are a married couple who are litigants in person in this statutory appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Titles pursuant to s. 19 of the Registration of Titles Act 1964 (‘the 1964 Act’). (While the wording of the applicants' notice of motion did not in terms invoke this statutory provision, it was agreed in the High Court that the relief sought in substance amounted in substance to an appeal under s. 19 of the 1964 Act). That appeal was dismissed in the High Court by Abbott J. in a judgment delivered on the 11th April 2016: see Quinn v. Property Registration Authority [2016] IEHC 212. The Quinns have now appealed to this Court against that decision.
Mr. Quinn is the director of a company, Cloughvalley Stores Ltd. (‘Cloughvalley’), and Ms. Quinn is the company secretary. Cloughvalley was once – but is not now – the owner of certain registered land in Co. Monaghan, as the lands in question were, it appears, sold by Allied Irish Banks plc to effect a sale to the notice parties, Johnny Hoey and Brigid Hoey as mortgagee in possession. The fundamental question presented here is whether Mr. and Ms. Quinn are entitled to obtain a copy of the relevant dealing instrument in the Land Registry file.
As it happens, Cloughvalley is currently in receivership, but it is still trading. In his affidavit grounding the application to the High Court, Mr. Quinn stated that he qua director still had obligations to file accounts in relation to the company and that he requires sight of the relevant dealing instrument for this purpose. In her affidavit Ms. Quinn said that the property was sold without her consent and without a court order to the new owners. She maintains that the sale was unauthorised. She maintained that she ‘must be entitled’ to inspect the instrument on behalf of the company as her property (and that, presumably of the company) ‘cannot be taken and sold behind closed doors’.
The Deputy Registrar, Ms. Liz Pope, has sworn an affidavit in response in which she pointed out that the applicants are, by their own admission, now aware of the price for which the lands were transferred and that the sale was effected by AIB as the registered chargee of the lands. She stated that there was accordingly no evidence that the applicants actually required sight of the instrument in question.
It is next necessary to consider the correspondence between the parties prior to the present application to the High Court. On the 9th May 2014 the second named appellant, Ms. Quinn, submitted an application to the Property Registration Authority (‘the PRA’) seeking to inspect an instrument with a particular dealing number. The application itself recorded that the instrument sought related to the lands described in Folio 3294F County Monaghan, beings lands at Sherlock Road, Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, of which Johnny and Brigid Hoey, the notice parties, were now the registered owners. The application was made by Ms. Quinn on behalf of Cloughvalley and was stated to be was made pursuant to Rule 159(9). In that application Ms. Quinn stated that she was the company secretary of Cloughvalley and that as the company was the previous owner of the lands, she wanted to inspect the relevant Land Registry Folio.
The PRA did not regard this request as in itself disclosing circumstances such as would permit Cloughvalley's officers to inspect the dealing instrument. The PRA then corresponded with Ms. Quinn requesting her to set out the special circumstances which she alleged rendered it appropriate to permit her to inspect these instruments. Ms. Quinn duly responded stating that the applicants were directors of Cloughvalley and that Allied Irish Bank plc had purported to appoint a receiver over the company's undertaking three and a half years earlier. They contended, first, that the appointment of the receiver was flawed; second, that the receiver had purported to take possession of lands which were not owned by Cloughvalley; third, that the receiver seized and disposed of plant and equipment which was not the property of Cloughvalley; and, fourthly, they were finding it difficult to get information from the receiver. The Quinns stated that, as directors of the company, they were ‘answerable and accountable for the receiver's actions and any subsequent losses or damage to the company’.
A few weeks later on the 18th June 2014 the PRA wrote indicating that Ms. Quinn had not established special circumstances existed which would justify permitting Cloughvalley to inspect the instrument in question and indicating that her application was being treated as withdrawn. It is accepted for the purposes of this appeal that this amounted to a refusal of the application by the PRA and that the application was formally treated as having been withdrawn solely so that the application fee could be refunded.
The reason given by the PRA for the refusal of the application was as follows:
‘You have not shown sufficient grounds as to why you are entitled to inspect or obtain an official copy of D2012LR085263D. The matters raised by you within said correspondence are not matters for the Property Registration Authority. Said dealing was a sale by Allied Irish Banks plc the registered owner of the charge registered as a burden at entry no. 1 part III of MN3294F. The Transfer Deed contained within said Instrument is not by a receiver but rather by a mortgagee in possession under its statutory powers.’
The appellants took issue with this decision by way of a letter dated the 25th June 2014. In that letter they essentially disputed that they challenged the validity of the appointment of a receiver by AIB. The PRA then resubmitted the application to the Examiner of Titles in light of the said letter and later, by way of a letter dated the 17th July 2014, informed the Appellants that the decision remained unchanged pointing out, once again, that the transfer in question - which happens to be dated the 3rd May 2012 - was a transfer by a mortgagee in possession under its statutory powers and was not a transfer by a receiver.
A second application was made by the Quinns one year later on the 6th July 2015. In support of the application Mr. Quinn referred to a letter dated the 3rd July 2015 to the Examiner of Titles and the documents attached thereto. In this correspondence the Quinns maintained that they should be permitted to inspect and take copies of the relevant Instrument because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuinness v Property Registration Authority
...question, it is helpful to refer to the judgment of Hogan J. in this Court in Quinn & anor. v. Property Registration Authority [2017] IECA 231. This judgment is very much on point and is understandably heavily relied upon by the appellant. In it, Hogan J. set out a characteristically clear ......