The High Court increased compensation for a disputed garden plot in Lusk from €34,290 to a net €192,000, ruling that the land should be valued at the date of the compensation hearing in 2004. It also awarded Circuit Court costs, subject to taxation, and said it would hear further argument on costs and refinements to its order.
The appeal concerned a Land Registry error that recorded Bridget Daly as full owner of a property that, under her late husband Thomas Daly’s will, she was entitled to hold only for life, with the remainder going to their son Laurence Daly. In 1997, Bridget Daly transferred the garden plot to Alan Carson for £8,000. The transfer was registered on a new folio.
The Registrar of Titles found that the registration error facilitated the sale without trustees being appointed under the Settled Land Acts. The Registrar assessed the loss by reference to a £35,000 valuation, deducted the £8,000 sale proceeds held for Laurence Daly, and awarded €34,290 plus interest. The Registrar did not award the costs of Laurence Daly’s Circuit Court action against Carson, which had failed in 2002.
Laurence Daly appealed the amount of compensation and the refusal of those Circuit Court costs. The High Court rejected his first two grounds, finding that the Registrar had not wrongly concluded that Bridget Daly could sell as a limited owner, and had in fact found that the registration error caused a loss. It also held that the appeal rules did not permit the Minister to raise a non-compensation argument under section 120(2) without a cross-appeal. In the alternative, the judge said any lack of care by the applicant’s solicitors was minimal and did not substantially contribute to the loss.
The court upheld the grounds challenging the valuation date and the Circuit Court costs decision. It considered a 2004 hearing-date valuation appropriate, but reduced the updated €270,000 valuation to €200,000. The judge said the higher valuation had not accounted for the plot being valued as a greenfield site without planning permission, including the uncertainties and delay involved in obtaining permission and services.
The order awarded €200,000 for the garden, less the €8,000 already received and held on account with interest, leaving net compensation of €192,000. Interest at Courts Act rates was to run from the 7 September 2004 hearing until payment. The court also awarded €17,121.04 in Circuit Court costs, or the lesser amount if taxed, together with the costs of the claim before the Registrar. The judgment states that further argument would be heard on costs and any appropriate refinements to the order.