The High Court has refused William and Bridget McLoughlin’s application to stop the sale of a cottage in Knockroe, Kilcommon, County Tipperary, while their dispute with its owners and mortgage lender proceeds. The court found a serious issue to be tried over an alleged encroachment onto the McLoughlins’ land, but said a sale would not prevent that claim from being pursued.
The judgment concerns an appeal from the Circuit Court’s refusal of an interlocutory injunction. Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered his ruling on 21 March 2024. The injunction application was refused; the court did not decide the underlying trespass claim or order the property sold.
The McLoughlins own neighbouring land. They allege that an extension built around 2007 encroaches on their folio. A surveyor’s report, handed to the judge on a provisional basis and not as affidavit evidence, estimated the encroaching floor area at about 68 square metres. The judge found an arguable trespass issue, referring in particular to Land Registry events in 2013 and 2014. The boundary claim remains for trial.
The couple also claimed adverse possession of the whole cottage and attached land. Their evidence was that the previous owner gave them the keys and possession as compensation for the alleged trespass. The judge said that account indicated possession with the owner’s consent and did not support adverse possession on the evidence then before the court. A tenancy-at-will argument raised in written submissions was not the pleaded case. The judge left open the possibility of different evidence or an application to amend at trial.
The judge concluded that refusing an injunction would not cause the McLoughlins irreparable prejudice. If successful at trial, they could seek removal of the part of the extension alleged to be on their land or damages. The purchaser had notice of the boundary dispute and the proceedings, the judgment said, so the sale would not defeat a claim that was ultimately established. The judge made no finding on the defendants’ argument that delay was a reason to refuse relief.
The defendants were awarded the costs of the injunction application in both the High Court and Circuit Court. High Court costs are to be adjudicated at the High Court rate. The judgment does not determine the final trespass claim or the merits of any amended case.