The High Court has restored a Donegal land dispute to the Circuit Court, ruling that an earlier consent order did not finally determine claims concerning Plot 134. It left open whether evidence about the settlement negotiations could still establish that the plaintiff was estopped from pursuing those claims.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 25 January 2013 in a Circuit Court appeal brought by Carrickfin Trust Limited against William Forker, Patrick Forker and Togáil Dhun Na nGall Teoranta.
In 2010, the High Court settled earlier proceedings between Carrickfin and Togáil Dhun Na nGall Teoranta. By consent, the company was to be registered as sole owner of lands marked pink on Map 3, and the balance of the proceedings was struck out. The order also recorded an agreement to compromise the matters in dispute. The settlement followed nine years of litigation.
The earlier case had also concerned Plot 134, east of the Map 3 lands. Carrickfin’s solicitor said the company understood, on advice from senior counsel, that it could pursue its remaining claims in separate Circuit Court proceedings. The defendants said they understood the settlement had resolved all issues. The judgment noted that Carrickfin’s intention to bring fresh proceedings was not communicated during negotiations.
Carrickfin began the Circuit Court case the day after the High Court settlement, seeking a declaration that it owned Plot 134 and other related relief. The defendants later sought to strike out the claims as an abuse of process. A Circuit Court judge granted that application on 28 July 2011.
On appeal, Mr Justice Peart concluded that the consent order had finally determined ownership of the Map 3 lands, but the strike-out of the remaining claims had not itself decided the Plot 134 issues. He ruled that those claims were not barred by res judicata and that bringing them was not, for that reason, an abuse of process.
The High Court set aside the Circuit Court order and struck out the defendants’ motion to strike out the claims. The action will proceed. No defence had yet been filed.
The judge did not decide whether Carrickfin was estopped by its conduct from continuing the case. He said that question could not be resolved on the appeal and would require oral evidence about what was discussed, agreed or understood during settlement negotiations. The defendants could raise that issue in their defence and present relevant evidence.