The Court of Appeal has dismissed Charles McGuinness’s appeal over access to two land transfer instruments, finding that his status as a previous registered owner was not enough to establish the “special circumstances” required for inspection or copies under the Land Registry Rules.
The appeal concerned a High Court order refusing McGuinness’s application to set aside the Property Registration Authority’s refusal to provide the instruments. The transfers recorded sales of lands in Cavan by Ulster Bank Ireland Limited, which had exercised a power of sale over charged properties. McGuinness and others had borrowed from the bank in 2006, securing the loan against lands they then owned as tenants in common. After a loan default, a receiver was appointed and the lands were sold to the second and third respondents.
McGuinness said access would show the consideration paid and allow him to assess whether he had grounds for legal action. The Authority refused because he was no longer the registered owner. Under Rule 159, registered owners may inspect relevant registry documents; another person may be allowed access in special circumstances.
Delivering judgment on 22 February 2019, Mr Justice Michael Peart said a former owner must show a genuine and legitimate interest and explain the purpose of seeking the specific instrument. The applicant must give the Authority enough information to assess whether special circumstances exist, including why access to the register alone would not suffice.
McGuinness’s applications identified his special circumstance as having been a registered owner when the transfer application was lodged. When asked for more detail, he referred obliquely to a criminal investigation concerning the registered mortgage, but did not connect it to the sale recorded in the instruments. In court, he maintained that his former ownership alone entitled him to access.
The Court of Appeal rejected that interpretation. Rule 159 does not give every former owner an automatic right to inspect or obtain copies. The court said each application must be considered on its facts and that special circumstances are not limited to suspected fraud.
The judgment differed from the High Court’s reasoning on the appellant’s bona fides. The High Court had relied in part on his failure to seek the documents during an earlier period when the transfers were pending registration. The appeal court said that omission did not establish a present lack of bona fides and was not relevant to whether special circumstances had been shown. It considered that question unnecessary to decide conclusively.
The appeal was dismissed because McGuinness had not provided a sufficient factual basis for special circumstances. The court said he could make a further application if he could explain them in greater detail. It did not decide whether the bank’s power of sale had been properly exercised or whether the transfers were lawful.