The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Tucker’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to strike out his proceedings against Tailte Éireann over the registration of two deeds connected to a Dublin property.
In a judgment delivered on 4 April 2025, Ms Justice Costello, with whom Whelan and Pilkington JJ agreed, held that the proceedings were an abuse of process and had no viable basis. The appeal concerned the dismissal of the claim; Tucker did not appeal a separate order requiring him to obtain leave before bringing further proceedings related to the property.
Tucker’s 2021 claim challenged the Registry of Deeds entries for a 2003 mortgage deed and a 2015 deed assigning loans and associated securities from Permanent TSB to Havbell. He alleged breaches of the Registration of Deeds Rules 2008. The Court of Appeal said the proceedings were brought to continue a dispute over a possession order that had become final, and amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on that order.
The court rejected Tucker’s arguments about the registration records. It found that the mortgage deed was dated 18 June 2003, referring to the legible date on its back page, and said the Registrar’s duty was to compare prescribed details on the application with the deed. The Registrar was not required to assess the mortgage’s terms or decide whether they were legally effective.
The court also held that the assignment registration properly identified the property through an entry in an accompanying spreadsheet. Although the entry named Ms C but not Tucker, the judgment said Tucker was not a party to that deed and his name was not required on the register. Whether the assignment actually transferred the mortgage had already been conclusively determined in the possession proceedings, the court said.
Tucker argued that the High Court should have dealt with his discovery motion before the respondent’s dismissal motion, and should have considered his later application to introduce further evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds. He had not asked the High Court to hear discovery first, and the judge had not been alerted to the evidence application before delivering judgment. The court also said the additional material could not have changed the outcome.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. It said Tailte Éireann was presumptively entitled to the costs of the appeal and proceedings, and set a timetable for written submissions if Tucker wished to contest costs. The judgment did not determine the final costs order.