The High Court has ordered the Property Registration Authority to cancel inhibitions registered over five land folios after finding they were lodged for the sole purpose of defeating enforcement of a judgment debt. The court did not decide whether the family members who claimed interests in the lands were beneficially entitled to them; it said those issues would require a plenary hearing.
ACC Loan Management Limited holds a judgment mortgage against the lands registered in the names of William and Vanda Fryday. In 2014, the court had declared the debt well charged on the properties and ordered their sale if the debt was not paid within six months. The judgment identified the debt as €1,301,344.44.
Lavinia Fryday, William Fryday’s mother, and Richard Fryday, his brother, registered inhibitions against the five folios. The entries restricted registration of a disposition for value by William without the relevant notice party’s consent. The registrations were made while proceedings for the well-charging and sale orders were before the court. William and Vanda had consented to the inhibitions. Richard later withdrew his objection to their cancellation and consented to it.
The notice parties advanced differing accounts of family farming arrangements, partnership agreements, transfers of land and alleged resulting trusts. Lavinia said she and her late husband had contributed to acquiring or transferring lands held in William’s name, and claimed an interest in them. She also described later arrangements involving a share of single farm payments. ACC disputed the claims, pointing to changes in the accounts given in successive affidavits and the absence of details about alleged advances and supporting transfer deeds.
Quinn J said the evidence on the alleged trusts, agreements and beneficial interests could not be resolved on affidavits. He also stressed that cancellation of the inhibitions did not determine those substantive issues. The court’s decision concerned whether the inhibitions could remain in place as a restriction on enforcement of the registered judgment mortgage.
The judge found the timing significant: the inhibitions were sought after the judgment mortgages had been registered and while the sale proceedings were under way, without disclosure of the consents during those proceedings. He concluded that they had been lodged to defeat due enforcement. The court also accepted that the differing accounts and delay in advancing the claims weighed against maintaining the entries.
Exercising its discretion under section 98(3) of the Registration of Title Act 1964, the High Court directed the Authority to cancel both notice parties’ inhibitions on the five folios. It did not rule on the validity of the claimed beneficial interests or make findings after a plenary hearing.