The High Court has granted Bord na Móna plc’s application to remove entries describing grazing rights from five County Mayo land folios, finding that the entries were errors made during registration. The court left the exact wording of its order to be settled after further submissions from the parties.
The application concerned folios MY19739F, MY3691, MY44796, MY3694 and MY3695. They record a right to “graze six sums” on a mountain associated with Corvoderry. Bord na Móna sought rectification under section 32 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.
The company owns land acquired through compulsory purchase orders in 1951 and through later voluntary purchases. The third to sixth respondents own the folios at issue. The judgment recounts that their predecessors acquired holdings under the land purchase system, with arrangements concerning grazing on a shared mountain area.
Those respondents submitted that the disputed entries had been copied into the register from the purchase documents and therefore were not errors originating in the Land Registry. The court examined a 1904 fiated purchase agreement and related registration rules. It concluded that the agreement set limits on grazing, rather than granting appurtenant rights, and that the word “appurtenant” appeared through the registration process.
The judge found that describing the grazing conditions as appurtenant rights gave no value to the entries and that their removal could be made without injustice to either side. The court also rejected the respondents’ challenge to the admission of certain pre-registration documents, finding the objection inappropriate in the circumstances of the affidavit hearing.
The respondents separately raised a possible prescriptive right to graze. The parties agreed that the affidavit proceedings were not the appropriate forum to determine that issue. The court expressly declined to express a view on whether such rights might exist outside the registered title.
The court granted the application under section 32, describing the entries as a “mischievous anomaly”, and awaits submissions on the precise form of the order. The judgment does not state that a final rectification order had already been settled.