Quinn v Property Registration Authority

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Henry Abbott
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 212
• Date: 11 April 2016
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2015 No. 315 MCA] [CT39/2015]

[2016] IEHC 212

THE HIGH COURT

Abbott J.

[2015 No. 315 MCA]

[CT39/2015]

REGISTRATION OF TITLE ACT 1964 SECTION 19(1) AND 159(6) (8)

AND

FOLIO MN 3294F MONAHAN

BETWEEN

MICHAEL AND BRIGID QUINN

APPLICANTS

AND

THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

AND

JOHNNY AND BRIGID HOEY

NOTICE PARTIES

Land & Conveyancing – S. 19 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 – The Land Registration Rules 2012 – Inspection of documents – Special circumstances

Facts: The applicants had filed an appeal against the decision of the respondent refusing to provide a certified copy of the relevant instrument on the basis of which the bank as mortgagee in possession had affected the sale of the property to the notice parties. The applicants who had already commenced an action against the bank in that regard contended that the bank should have affected the sale through the receiver rather than taking it upon itself to sell the relevant property to the notice parties. The respondent contended that its refusal to allow production/inspection of the instrument was in conformity with r. 159 of the Land Registration Rules 2012, which permitted either the registered owner of the property or a person authorized by such owner to inspect the documents.

Mr. Justice Henry Abbott dismissed the appeal. The Court held that a person not being the registered owner of a land or not being authorized by the owner to inspect the relevant documents under r. 159 of the Rules of 2012 could be permitted to inspect the said documents only under special circumstances as envisaged under para 9 of the Rules of 2012. The Court found that since there were no special circumstances in the case, the aforesaid exception did not arise. The Court, however, suggested that since the applicants had already commenced an action against the bank in the High Court in relation to the said sale of lands, it would be appropriate to file an application before that Court seeking the desired relief.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Henry Abbott delivered on the 11th day of April, 2016.

1 The applicants herein are husband and wife and the husband is a Director of Cloughvalley Stores Ltd. a limited liability company that was, but is not now, the registered owner of Folio MM 3294F Co. Monaghan.

2 By notice of motion dated the 22nd day of October, 2015 the applicants applied for an order directing the Property Registration Authority of Ireland (‘The Authority’) being the respondent herein to make available a certified copy of Instrument No. D2012LR085263D. The applicants claim this instrument was used to affect a sale to the notice parties herein by the Allied Irish Bank Plc. as mortgagee in possession.

Procedural Aspects

3 The applicants are personal litigants. They applied to the Authority for a copy of the instrument. This application was refused and the Authority, through its appropriate officer, notified the applicants that the application would be treated as withdrawn and informed them that the fees charged for the application could be recovered on that basis. Having considered the history of the application and the substance thereof, this Court was of the view that the application to the Authority should be taken as having been refused for the purpose of this application to the court and Mr. Buttanshaw, counsel for the respondent/defendant, has agreed to this course.

4 The notice of motion was listed in the ordinary list of the High Court in the first instance, and this gave rise to a certain amount of confusion in relation to what the appropriate court might be to hear the motion. Ultimately, the President of the High Court assigned the motion for hearing before me as Land Judge dealing with appeals from the decisions of the Registrar pursuant to s. 19 of the Registration of Title Act 1964. The notice of motion sets out the claim in the following terms.

‘An order directing the property registration authority of Ireland to make available a certified copy of instrument number …’

5 While this wording does not explicitly say so, the substance of the relief being sought by the applicants is, in effect, an appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Registration of Title Act 1964. Therefore the court, on the consent of the applicants and the respondent, decided that the application would proceed on the basis of an appeal pursuant to s. 19 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.

Standing of the Applicant/Applicants

6 In his grounding affidavit, the first named applicant states that he is a Director of the said Cloughvalley Stores Ltd. now in receivership and that he has residual obligations to file accounts in relation to the company and requires sight of the instrument in question to furnish such returns. The first named applicant referred to correspondence with the Companies Office, which showed that he was active in that regard. The court...