The High Court found that a purported transfer of a Ballsbridge property from Liam and Keira Curran to Kent International Holdings LLC never took place, and that Hamilton Holdings LLC’s subsequent registration as owner was procured by fraud or mistake.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore gave judgment on 30 June 2023 on an application for judgment in default of appearance. Hamilton took no part in the proceedings. The judge said he intended to make the orders sought by the plaintiffs, but listed the case for a further mention to hear submissions on the order’s precise form and decide outstanding matters, including costs.
The proceedings concern a house at 13 St. Mary’s Road, Ballsbridge, which the Currans acquired as unregistered land. They had mortgaged it to Permanent TSB (PTSB) in 2007 and 2008. The judgment said that, following arrangements between the Currans and PTSB, PTSB was agreed to be the effective legal owner of title from March 2015.
Hamilton was registered as first owner after an application made on its behalf on 3 April 2018. The registration relied on a purported January 2018 conveyance from Kent, which in turn was said to have acquired the property from the Currans in July 2014. The alleged deed from the Currans to Kent had not surfaced. Liam Curran’s evidence that neither he nor Keira had executed such a conveyance was described by the judge as plain and uncontradicted.
The judge found the asserted transfer to Kent was fraudulent. He said Hamilton’s transfer depended on the false premise that Kent had owned the property, while noting that Hamilton’s absence meant the court could not probe the knowledge or state of mind of people behind the company or its solicitor.
The judgment also addressed the PTSB mortgages, which had been registered in the Registry of Deeds in 2007 and 2009. PTSB’s counsel submitted that proper searches would have revealed them. The judge said the mortgages were not disclosed in Hamilton’s registration application and that the solicitor’s statement that the property was free of encumbrances was, at the least, fundamentally mistaken.
The court said the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment and to declarations that Hamilton had no interest in the property, that the purported 2018 conveyance was fraudulent or a nullity, and that Hamilton’s registration was ineffective. It also said the register should be rectified under section 31 and/or section 32 of the Registration of Title Act 1964. The judge stated his intention to make the orders, with the exact wording and costs still to be addressed at the July mention.