The High Court has ordered the first and second plaintiffs in a Waterford boundary dispute to identify the land they say was retained from a 2006 mortgage and to state, in general terms, the basis for claiming that the property’s entranceway was excluded. The court also ordered discovery of specified documents. It did not decide who owns the disputed entranceway.
The case concerns land at Oaklands, Ballinakill, County Waterford. The plaintiffs say a receiver had no title to sell the entranceway to the defendants because it was part of about 2.3 acres retained from a larger holding and was not included in the mortgage. The defendants say the first and second plaintiffs have access to a public road without the entranceway. Justice Stack said that access issue was not before her and that the boundary dispute would have to be explored at trial.
The mortgage deed, dated 6 January 2006, described about 8.3 acres but had no map attached. The judgment records that the land was unregistered and that the disputed property formed part of a larger holding. The court said a mapping error may have occurred when the receiver sold the land, but made no finding on that possibility.
On the defendants’ request for particulars, the court ordered the first and second plaintiffs to identify on a map the approximately 10.6 acres referred to in their claim and the residual 2.3 acres they say fell outside the mortgage. They must also give the general basis for saying the entranceway was identifiable as part of the excluded land, such as a boundary or another means of identifying it. They do not have to disclose the evidence they intend to rely on at trial.
The judge declined to order replies to several other requests, including questions about whether the plaintiffs saw the receiver mark the land or tried to prevent its sale, describing those matters as evidence rather than proper particulars. She also directed the plaintiffs either to particularise their claim for special damages or confirm they were not pursuing it.
For discovery, the court ordered production of deeds of conveyance for parcels sold by the first and second plaintiffs between 1978 and 2005. It also narrowed requests concerning communications about the 2006 mortgage, maps or surveys prepared for it, dealings with engineer Michael Reilly over a later conveyance map, valuations connected with a transfer to the Ellickson family trust, and documents creating any life estate or other interest claimed by the first and second plaintiffs in the dwelling house.
The judgment asked the parties to agree a form of order reflecting the rulings and any agreed particulars and discovery. The judge said she would hear them on ancillary issues and the costs of the motions.