The High Court dismissed Michael and Brigid Quinn’s appeal seeking a certified copy of a land registry instrument linked to the sale of property in County Monaghan. It found no special circumstances requiring the Property Registration Authority to permit inspection or provide a copy under the Land Registration Rules 2012.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Henry Abbott on 11 April 2016, concerned Instrument No. D2012LR085263D. The Quinns said it had been used in a sale to Johnny and Brigid Hoey by Allied Irish Banks (AIB), which they said acted as mortgagee in possession.
The Quinns had applied to the Authority for the instrument. After the application was refused, they sought a court order directing the Authority to provide a certified copy. The court treated the matter, with the parties’ consent, as an appeal under section 19 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.
Michael Quinn said he was a director of Cloughvalley Stores Ltd, which was in receivership, and needed the instrument to complete company filings. The court accepted that the applicants retained standing to seek inspection or production even though they were no longer the registered owners. The respondent’s counsel agreed with that point.
The Quinns also argued that the instrument was needed for separate proceedings against AIB. They said they had obtained judgment in default of defence against the Hoeys in those proceedings, while their case against AIB remained pending. AIB had applied to have that case struck out. These were the applicants’ submissions; the High Court did not determine the underlying claims about the sale or the receiver’s fees.
The Authority argued that, under rule 159, inspection was generally limited to registered owners and people authorised by them, subject to exceptions. It accepted that rule 159(9) allowed the Authority to permit access in special circumstances, but said that threshold was not met. It also submitted that the Quinns could seek the instrument from AIB through the pending proceedings.
Justice Abbott concluded that the Quinns had not established special circumstances under rule 159(9). He said they could ask the judge hearing the AIB case for any necessary relief, on notice to AIB and the registered owners. He did not decide whether that court would order production or whether the Registry document would be needed. The appeal was dismissed.