The Court of Appeal has refused Joseph Slattery leave to bring fresh proceedings against his brother, Thomas Slattery, over land at Lahinch, County Clare. It also refused his request for a transcript of an earlier appeal hearing.
Mr Justice Allen ruled on 12 May 2023 that the application could be decided by a single judge. A Court of Appeal order made in July 2022 required Mr Slattery to obtain the court’s prior leave before issuing further proceedings about the lands. He applied in writing to the Registrar in April 2023.
The dispute concerns 4.144 acres transferred by the brothers’ parents to Thomas Slattery in 1981. He was registered as owner in 1982. Joseph Slattery later claimed that a transfer signed by his mother in 1988 also gave him the land. The ruling says the 1988 transfer did not include those acres: they had already been separated from the original folio and registered in Thomas Slattery’s name.
Thomas Slattery brought Circuit Court proceedings in 2011 seeking to restrain his brother from trespassing. Joseph Slattery denied his brother’s ownership and counterclaimed for a declaration that he was entitled to registration. The Circuit Court granted an injunction and dismissed the counterclaim in 2012. The High Court dismissed his appeal in 2014.
Joseph Slattery subsequently brought further claims over ownership and registration. Courts dismissed those claims, and an Isaac Wunder order restricted him from bringing additional proceedings without leave. Earlier decisions described the ownership issue as already determined and the further litigation as vexatious or an abuse of process.
In support of the present application, Joseph Slattery alleged that judges had not considered relevant deeds and witnesses and suggested that a map attached to the 1981 transfer had been altered. Those were his claims, not findings made in this ruling. Mr Justice Allen said the proposed proceedings would reopen the ownership issue already decided and would be vexatious and an abuse of process.
The judge refused leave to issue the proposed proceedings. He also refused the transcript request, noting that Mr Slattery had given no reason for it and that his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court had already been determined. The ruling did not grant permission to bring a new case or order a transcript.