Walsh v Property Registration Authority

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan
• Judgment Date: 17 February 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IECA 34
• Date: 17 February 2016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 2014/1065 [Article 64 transfer]

[2016] IECA 34

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Hogan J.

Appeal No. 2014/1065

[Article 64 transfer]

Ryan P.

Finlay Geoghegan J.

Hogan J.

BETWEEN/

PETER WALSH

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

AND

PROPERTY REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

AND

COILLTE TEO.

NOTICE PARTY

Property – s. 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 – Costs Order – Appeal

Facts: The Property Registration Authority (?the Authority?) appealed against an order for costs made in judicial review proceedings in the High Court. It contended that its functions under s. 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 (?the 1964 Act?) were quasi–judicial in nature and that a costs order could not be made against it when it had no active role in the proceedings. The Authority also argued that it was immune from costs in uncontested cases.

Held by Hogan J:

The High Court was correct to conclude that the Authority exercised administrative functions which did not involve adjudication upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, the question of quasi–immunity from costs in respect of adjudicatory functions did not arise. The High Court was correct to award the applicant his costs against the Authority. The Authority?s appeal against a costs order was dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan delivered the 17th day of February 2016

1 This is an appeal by the Property Registration Authority (?the Authority?) against an order for costs made in judicial review proceedings in the High Court by Hedigan J. in an ex tempore ruling delivered on 10th February 2014. The Authority contends that as those proceedings concerned the exercise by it of its land registration functions under s. 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 (?the 1964 Act?) it would be inappropriate, by reason of the quasi-judicial nature of those statutory functions, to have any costs order made against in circumstances where it had taken no active step in those proceedings. The Authority accordingly argued that it enjoyed an effective immunity from costs in uncontested cases of this kind and it invited the Court to allow this appeal on that particular and specific basis.

2 At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on 22nd April 2015 the Court indicated that it was dismissing this appeal and that it would give its reasons at a later date. The purpose of this judgment is to give the reasons for that decision.

3 It should be noted that the Authority originally had appealed to the Supreme Court against the making of this costs order. By order of the Chief Justice made on 28th October 2004 (made with the concurrence of the other members of the Supreme Court), this appeal was transferred to this Court pursuant to Article 64 of the Constitution.

4 The background to this appeal is quite straightforward. The notice party, Coillte Teo., applied to the Property Registration Authority (?the Authority?) pursuant to s. 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 (?the 1964 Act?) for registration of certain lands bearing Folio No. 33105 in the Register of Freeholders for Co. Mayo on the basis of adverse possession. The Authority ultimately acceded to that application and on 13th March 2013 it registered Coillte as the owner of the lands.

5 As it happens, Mr. Walsh has been the registered owner of these lands since 1986. On 23rd January 2013 the Authority wrote to him advising him of this application by Coillte and warned him that Coillte would be registered as owner of the lands unless good cause to the contrary was shown by him in writing within 21 days of receipt of the letter. On 30th January 2013 Mr. Walsh's solicitors, Gilvarry & Associates, wrote objecting to this course of action, stating their client was the ?full registered owner of the lands which he purchased in 1984? and that he denied ?any entitlement to Coillte over the lands.? Gilvarry & Associates further requested a copy of Coillte's affidavit so that a fully and detailed response could be given by their client.

6 The Authority wrote to Gilvarry & Associates on 5th February 2013 enclosing a copy of Coillte's affidavit which had set out the grounds by which it sought registration by reason of its adverse possession of the lands. The Authority requested that if Mr. Walsh was to maintain his objection to Coillte's application that a replying affidavit ?setting out fully the legal grounds of the objection? would be sent to the Authority within one month from receipt of this letter.

7 Gilvarry & Associates replied on 15th April 2013 to confirm that Mr. Walsh's affidavit would be supplied by the end of that week. They further requested confirmation that no decision would be made by the Authority in advance of receipt of this affidavit.

8 As it happens, however, and unbeknownst at the time to Mr. Walsh and his solicitor, the Authority had already proceeded to register Coillte as the registered owner on 13th March 2013. The Authority had apparently taken the view that, as no replying affidavit had been received by Mr. Walsh within the time it stipulated in the letter of 5th February 2013, it could – and should – proceed to register Coillte as the full owner.

9 Mr. Walsh was later dismayed to learn subsequently that the registration had proceeded without reference to him. Gilvarry & Associates then wrote to the Authority on 19th April 2013, objecting in forthright terms to what had happened:

?As you will be aware, our client was objecting to the application and we had requested a full copy of the application form from you. We received a partial copy of the application being the affidavit of the applicant, but did not receive any supporting documentation to include maps, which it clearly referred to in the schedule of this affidavit.

Our client is extremely distressed as this application now appears to have been completed without reference to him on 13th March 2013. Our client was neither informed over the pending completion nor of the actual completion of the application. Similarly, this office was never informed. While it is clear from your letter of 5th February 2013 that you gave one month for a reply to be submitted, you never stated that there was a prospect that the application could potentially proceed without reference to our client. Surely a final warning would have been appropriate whereby you warned our client that the application was going to go ahead and would be unsuccessful unless he responded within a further specified period of time. This was not done and this is grossly unfair.

Our client lives forty miles...