The High Court ordered the removal of SLGI (Holdings) plc’s registration as owner of the freehold of ADT House in Phibsborough, finding that SLGI had never acquired the title it claimed. The court did not decide whether ADT Limited was entitled to rely on that registration when it surrendered its lease.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2019, Mr Justice Alexander Owens directed that the register be rectified by eliminating the registration of Folio DN220572F, made under Dealing D2017LR131291W. The application before him concerned a preliminary issue, which the parties agreed could be treated as a hearing of the issue on undisputed facts in affidavits.
The action concerns ADT House, at 113 Phibsborough Road, Dublin 3. Brian O’Riordan and Michael O’Shea acquired the freehold and intermediate titles in 1993, subject to a 35-year lease to ADT dated 1987. In March 2018, they asked ADT why rent had not been paid. They were told SLGI had become registered as owner and ADT had surrendered its lease and vacated. The judgment says ADT paid SLGI to leave the lease.
SLGI’s claimed title rested on a 2016 conveyance from Kent International Holdings LLC and an asserted earlier conveyance from Park Avenue Estates Limited to Woodslim Limited in 1990. The court found that the 1990 conveyance covered an adjoining property and did not include ADT House. Woodslim denied ever conveying ADT House to SLGI’s vendor, and no executed deed from Woodslim was produced.
A solicitor acting for SLGI submitted a Form 3 certificate to support first registration. The judge found the certificate’s statements about the 1990 conveyance were incorrect and that the evidence did not show a sufficient investigation of title. He rejected SLGI’s submission that the solicitor was acting as an agent for the Property Registration Authority. He also rejected the argument that a payment arrangement with SLGI’s vendor should prevent rectification.
The court said it had jurisdiction to set aside a registration resulting from actual fraud or mistake, and found that no subsequent transfer or charge created a bar to rectification in this case. It made no finding on whether ADT could rely on the registration when surrendering its lease; that issue was left for another day.