Stanley (plaintiff) v Kieran

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Miss Justice Laffoy
• Judgment Date: 19 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 272
• Docket Number: RECORD NO. 2001/1017 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 July 2007

Stanley v Kieran (Orse Crawley) & River Properties Ltd

BETWEEN/

JAMES STANLEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

MARY KIERAN (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS MARY CRAWLEY) AND RIVER PROPERTIES LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

[2007] IEHC 272

RECORD NO. 2001/1017 P

THE HIGH COURT

LAND LAW

Resulting trust

Beneficial ownership of property - Acquisition by plaintiff of land in name of defendant - Control of property given to defendant by plaintiff - Land subsequently registered in name of company - Delay in registering land in name of company - Ownership of issued shares in company - Whether plaintiff beneficial owner of land - Whether defendant held issued share capital in company in trust for plaintiff - Whether plaintiff intended to secure beneficial ownership of property for himself through company or to benefit defendant - Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd [1968] IR 252; Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92; Parkes v Parkes [1980] ILRM 137; Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340; Lowson v Coombes [1999] Ch 373 considered - Standing v Bowring (1885) 31 Ch D 282 followed - Claim dismissed (2001/1017 P - Laffoy J - 19/7/2007) [2007] IEHC 272

Stanley v Kieran

The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to lands which it was alleged were among a number of properties purchased by the plaintiff but as a matter of convenience acquired in the name of the defendants on trust for the plaintiff, while the plaintiff and the first defendant were co-habiting between 1983 and 1996.

Held by Laffoy J. in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim that a combination of factors suggested as a matter of probability that the plaintiff intended to benefit the first defendant.

Reporter: R.W.

BATTLE v IRISH ART PROMOTION CENTRE LTD 1968 IR 252

LAND ACT 1965 S45

DELANY EQUITY & THE LAW OF TRUSTS IN IRELAND 3ED 2003 146

DYER v DYER 1788 2 COX EQ 92

STANDING v BOWRING 1886 LR CH D 282

PARKES v PARKES 1980 ILRM 137

TINSLEY v MILLIGAN 1994 1 AC 340

LOWSON v COOMBES 1999 CH 373

Miss Justice Laffoy

1 This was the second of three connected cases which were listed for hearing in this Court on 1st May, 2007. The other two were:

2 (a) John O'Connor v. Mary Kieran and River Properties Limited (Record No. 2004/ 19479 P) (the O'Connor proceedings); and

3 (b) James Stanley v. John O'Connor (Record No. 2007/2451 P) (the 2007 proceedings).

4 The essential common feature of the three actions is that they concern the ownership of the issued shares in the second defendant and of residential property in County Kilkenny. The second defendant is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. The first defendant is the registered owner of the two issued shares in the second defendant. The residential property, which is known as Brownsbarn House, is registered on Folio 4444 F of the Register of Freeholders, County Kilkenny. The lands registered on Folio 4444 F comprise an area of 4.451 hectares. The second defendant was registered as full owner on Folio 4444 F on 8th August, 2000, but the evidence establishes that the transfer under which the second defendant acquired the lands from the previous registered owner was dated 12th January, 1990. These proceedings were registered as alis pendens on Folio 4444 F on 30th January, 2001. The O'Connor proceedings were registered as a lis pendens on Folio 4444 F on 22nd December, 2004.

5 These proceedings are also registered as alis pendens against the lands registered on Folio 18341 F, County Kilkenny, on which there are registered two small plots of land aggregating .1330 hectares adjoining the lands registered on Folio 4444 F. The first defendant was registered as owner on Folio 18341 F on 15th April, 1999.

6 The O'Connor proceedings were heard on 1st May, 2007. The only appearance on behalf of the defendants in those proceedings was by the first defendant, who appeared in person. At the end of the hearing I gave anex tempore judgment, of which there should be a stenographer's note in due course. I made the following orders:

7 (1) a declaration that the plaintiff, John O'Connor, has exercised the option, which the first defendant granted to him on 17th September, 2004, for the purchase of the shares held by the first defendant in the second defendant at the price of €1,600,000; and

8 (2) an injunction until further order restraining the first defendant by herself, her servants or agents, from disposing of, charging or otherwise dealing in the shares held by her in the second defendant.

9 These proceedings were heard on 2nd and 3rd May, 2007.

10 The 2007 proceedings which, in broad terms, address issues of priority as between John O'Connor and the plaintiff, remain to be heard.

11 In his statement of claim, which was delivered on 9th July, 2001, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to Brownsbarn House and lands, which it was alleged were among a number of properties purchased by the plaintiff but "as a matter of convenience" were acquired in the name of the defendants on trust for the plaintiff, while the plaintiff and the first defendant were co-habiting between 1983 and 1996. Declaratory and injunctive relief was also sought in relation to certain items of personal property, which the plaintiff also alleged were in the possession of the first defendant but were his property. At the hearing, the reliefs pursued by the plaintiff were the following:

12 (a) a declaration that the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the lands registered on Folio 4444 F and Folio18341 F, County Kilkenny;

13 (b) further, or in the alternative, a declaration that the first defendant holds the issued share capital in the second defendant in trust for the plaintiff;

14 (c) a mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their servants or agents to transfer the lands registered in Folio 4444 F and Folio 18341 F of the Register of Freeholders, County Kilkenny, to the plaintiff and to execute all documents necessary to effect such transfer; and

15 (d) further, or in the alternative, a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to transfer all the shares held by her in the second defendant to the plaintiff.

16 As regards the relief referred to at (a), counsel for the plaintiff made it clear that the basis of the claim is that the second defendant has at all times held the lands on a resulting trust for the plaintiff personally. As regards the relief referred to at (b), the basis of the claim is that the first defendant now holds the shares in the second defendant in trust for the plaintiff.

17 The basis of the plaintiff's claim in relation to Brownsbarn House, as pleaded in the statement of claim, is that in late 1989 the plaintiff purchased that property. The purchase price was IR£220,000, all of which was provided by the plaintiff. Additional lands were purchased with monies provided entirely by the plaintiff from Kilkenny County Council. Those properties were conveyed to the second defendant, the share capital of which is registered in the name of the first defendant and held in trust for the plaintiff. Since the purchase of the properties, a number of improvements have taken place, including the construction of a swimming pool at a cost of approximately IR£30,000, entrance gates, fencing and land improvements at a cost of IR£10,000, decoration and maintenance and purchase of furniture totalling at least IR£100,000. All of the foregoing were financed by the plaintiff, as also was the furniture in Brownsbarn House, which it is alleged was financed out of the sale of property at Woodenbridge, County Wicklow, which it is alleged was the plaintiff's property, because he provided the purchase money, although it was conveyed to the first defendant.

18 As to what precipitated the proceedings, it was alleged that in the month of December, 2000 the plaintiff requested the first defendant to join with him in taking the necessary legal steps to mortgage his property at Brownsbarn House but she refused to co-operate or in any way assist him. Subsequently he became aware of information demonstrating that she intended disposing of the property without reference to him. He had requested her to furnish all title and relevant corporate documents pertaining to Brownsbarn House and the second defendant and to execute all necessary legal documents to transfer the property into his name but she had refused.

19 Until May, 2006, there was a solicitor on record in these proceedings (and in the O'Connor proceedings) for the defendants. The first defendant discharged the solicitor in May, 2006. Subsequently, by order of this Court (Clarke J.) made on 6th November, 2006 the solicitor was declared to be no longer acting for the second defendant and was allowed to come off record.

20 In a defence delivered on behalf of the defendants on 16th December, 2002 it was denied that the plaintiff purchased or acquired any of the properties referred to in the statement of claim in the name of the defendants in trust for the plaintiff. In relation to the property now in issue, Brownsbarn House and lands, the defendants specifically pleaded as follows:

21 · That the plaintiff is estopped by reason of his conduct and representations from asserting or claiming any ownership or beneficial interest in Brownsbarn House.

22 · That the plaintiff is estopped from asserting or claiming ownership of a beneficial interest in Brownsbarn House and lands by reason of the express agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant that, in consideration of the first defendant living with the plaintiff as his common-law wife and personal assistant in his business affairs, the first defendant would thereafter and irrevocably be entitled to the sole and exclusive beneficial interest in the said house and lands and that the said agreement was affirmed and fully implemented by the plaintiff...