The Court of Appeal has dismissed David Langan’s appeal against the striking out of his claim over a property in Rush, County Dublin, and upheld the decision to vacate a lis pendens registered against it. The court found that statutory protections for purchasers prevented him from challenging their title on the pleaded grounds.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Butler on 13 March 2024, concerned orders made by the High Court in 2023. The appeal initially also involved Tailte Éireann, but Langan accepted that it was not a proper respondent. The authority was released from the proceedings shortly before the appeal hearing, and the court ordered Langan to pay its appeal costs.
Langan bought the property in 2006 with a loan secured against it. After repayment defaults, the lender appointed a receiver in 2016. The receiver later took possession and arranged a public auction. The second and third respondents bought the property in October 2018, and the sale was completed in April 2019. Langan registered a lis pendens in July 2019, after the sale had completed, and later claimed that the transfer was unlawful because the mortgagee had not obtained a court order for possession under section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964.
The Court of Appeal held that sections 21(2) of the Conveyancing Act 1881 and 5(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1911 protected the purchasers’ title against a challenge based on an improper or irregular exercise of the power of sale. The court said any remedy for an irregularity in the sale process would lie against the mortgagee or receiver, rather than the purchasers. It also rejected the argument that a court order under section 62(7) was the only way for a mortgagee to obtain possession. The court said the section provides a mechanism for obtaining possession, but is not exclusive.
The court also upheld vacation of the lis pendens under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. It found unreasonable delay: Langan served the proceedings on the purchasers shortly before the summons was due to lapse, and the statement of claim followed later. The court said the relevant delay was about 26 months and was not explained by evidence.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s judgment states that the purchasers should receive their appeal costs, subject to Langan notifying the court if he wished to contest that proposed order by the specified deadline. It also recorded that Tailte Éireann’s appeal costs were awarded against him.