Judgment: 2006-11-24 · Court archive

High Court declares Tracey Enterprises owner of disputed Mount Seskin plot

The court rejected Thomas Drury’s adverse possession claim, but made no injunction or damages award.

High Court · [2006] IEHC 381

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Tracey Enterprises Macadam Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Thomas Drury (Defendant)
  • Tracey Enterprises Dundrum Limited
What

The court rejected Thomas Drury’s adverse possession claim, but made no injunction or damages award.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Disputed plot
  • Road from Tallaght to Brittas
  • Mount Seskin
  • Brittas
  • Tallaght
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The dispute concerned land on the left-hand side of the road from Tallaght to Brittas. The company claimed ownership through a 2004 conveyance from an associated company, Tracey Enterprises Dundrum Limited. The court found that Dundrum had acquired title to the plot under a 1990 conveyance.

The High Court has declared that Tracey Enterprises Macadam Limited owns a plot of just over half an acre at Mount Seskin, Brittas, after rejecting Thomas Drury’s claim to have acquired it through adverse possession.

The dispute concerned land on the left-hand side of the road from Tallaght to Brittas. The company claimed ownership through a 2004 conveyance from an associated company, Tracey Enterprises Dundrum Limited. The court found that Dundrum had acquired title to the plot under a 1990 conveyance.

Drury owned adjoining land and argued that his use of the disputed plot had extinguished the company’s title. The judgment records that he used the land to test machinery from his neighbouring workshop and cleared waste from it. The judge found that, before 2000, this use was sporadic and did not amount to possession excluding the owner and others.

The court also considered a 1993 letter in which Drury described the land as “commonage” and said he and others had used it on occasion. The judge concluded that the letter did not assert ownership or exclusive possession. The evidence also showed that the company erected fencing along parts of the plot in 1994, and that the parties later disputed their boundary after Drury put up fencing in 2000.

The judge found that Drury’s use and activity on the plot intensified after September 2000, including the erection of gates and the placing of containers. But the court rejected his claim that he had acquired title by adverse possession. The proceedings had begun in 2005, and the judgment applied the 12-year limitation period for actions to recover land.

The court declared that the plot was at all material times, and remains, owned by Tracey Enterprises Macadam Limited. The company had not sought a perpetual injunction, and the judge said none was necessary in light of the declaration. No evidence of loss or damage had been provided, so the company was not entitled to damages.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review