The High Court has ordered Gerard O’Sullivan and Fiona O’Brien to vacate an apartment at Rosebank Place, Clondalkin, and barred them from interfering with or damaging it. The court also ordered both respondents to pay the applicant’s costs to date.
In a judgment delivered on 2 June 2020, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said The Davy Platform ICAV was the registered owner of the apartment. It had bought the property in October 2018 and was registered as full owner the following month.
The company sought injunctions after discovering in April 2020 that O’Brien, O’Sullivan’s niece, was living in the apartment. The judgment said the property had been vacant and secure when inspected in May and October 2018. Letters asking both respondents to leave were sent on 22 April 2020 with a copy of the property folio.
O’Sullivan appeared without a lawyer. He claimed the transfer from his and his wife’s names had been fraudulent and said he was the apartment’s lawful owner, with O’Brien renting from him. The judge said those allegations were unsupported by evidence in the proceedings. O’Sullivan accepted that he had no claim against the applicant and did not allege it knew of or could have known about the alleged fraud. O’Brien did not appear, enter a defence or provide evidence.
The court held that the Land Register was conclusive evidence of ownership under section 31 of the Registration of Title Act 1964. It said any claim about an improper sale should be pursued against the party responsible for exercising the power of sale, rather than against this purchaser. The judgment noted that O’Sullivan could bring his own action if he had evidence of fraud, but until then he had no legal entitlement to the apartment.
The court made the orders sought, requiring the respondents to vacate immediately and restraining further interference with the property. It refused O’Sullivan’s request for a stay on the basis that O’Brien was recovering from a serious illness: no evidence was presented, although the applicant did not dispute the assertion.
The costs order covered the action to date. The judgment warned that further costs could follow if the respondents continued to contest the case. It did not determine any separate claim about the alleged fraud.