The High Court stayed proceedings until 4 May 2023 to give a plaintiff time to seek permission to amend her statement of claim in a dispute over four properties and a lis pendens. The court did not decide the amendment application or vacate the lis pendens; it said it would consider further orders at the next hearing.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Eileen Roberts on 29 March 2023, concerned an application by Everyday Finance DAC under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The company sought to have the lis pendens vacated. It said the plaintiff’s claim did not seek an interest in land and that the registration was intended to pressure it in settlement negotiations.
The plaintiff’s 2021 plenary summons sought, among other reliefs, declarations that she owned or had a beneficial interest in the properties, was entitled to possess them, and that the receiver’s appointment was unlawful. Her statement of claim, served in July 2022, sought damages but did not repeat those remedies. The judge said those claims appeared to have been abandoned in the statement of claim as drafted.
The plaintiff alleged that the receiver’s appointment and efforts to deal with the properties were unlawful, and said one property, Woodview, Grays Lane, was her family home. Her counsel argued that the pleading could be amended and that the proceedings challenged the receiver’s authority to sell. Everyday Finance argued the court should decide the application on the documents then before it.
The judge found that the current statement of claim did not, on its face, claim an estate or interest in land. But she considered the essential dispute to concern the receiver’s appointment and ability to sell, and said a properly amended claim reflecting the summons could support a lis pendens. She also found insufficient evidence to conclude that the lis pendens had been registered for an improper purpose or that the action was not being prosecuted bona fide. The court did not determine whether the plaintiff’s underlying allegations would succeed.
The plaintiff was directed to serve a motion for leave to amend, together with a proposed amended statement of claim, within four weeks. The motion was to be returnable on 4 May 2023, when the judge would hear both sides on the proposed amendments. The judge said she would propose vacating the lis pendens if the plaintiff did not take the required steps, leave was refused, or the amendments were inadequate. Those were conditional proposed orders, not an order made on 29 March.