The Court of Appeal has dismissed Conor Hogan’s appeal against injunctions granted to Tarbutus Limited in trespass proceedings concerning an apartment, and affirmed the High Court order with a correction to one date.
The judgment, delivered by Donnelly J on 8 February 2023, concerned Apartment 9B in a development whose name and location are anonymised in the judgment. Tarbutus was registered as full owner in September 2019. The court said the apartment was not Hogan’s family home or private residence.
Tarbutus brought plenary proceedings in the High Court, relying on the registered folio as proof of title. Hogan, representing himself, argued that the transfer and registration were flawed, that the sale price of €24,000 was an undervalue, and that he had a right to remain in possession. He also challenged the decision to proceed with the trial while his interrogatories and a motion to consolidate related proceedings remained outstanding.
The Court of Appeal found no breach of natural or constitutional justice in refusing an adjournment. Hogan had been present when the trial date was fixed, and the court said he had an opportunity to raise relevant questions in cross-examination. It also found no prejudice from proceeding before the consolidation motion was heard.
The court held that the registered folio was conclusive evidence of Tarbutus’s title under the Registration of Title Act 1964. It said that a challenge sufficient to affect the register required evidence of actual fraud or a qualifying mistake. The court rejected Hogan’s claims as falling short of that threshold, including his reliance on alleged errors in the transfer, the price paid, the company’s reported dormant status and the absence of the original charge deed. It said the registered owner was not required to prove the steps that had led to registration.
The judgment distinguishes these proceedings from a mortgagee’s application for possession: Tarbutus sued as registered owner in trespass proceedings. The court said the High Court was correct to find that Tarbutus had established title and that Hogan had not established a defence to the injunctions.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed, with a clerical correction replacing “23rd December” with “22nd December” as the date of Hogan’s written submissions. The court proposed that Tarbutus receive its appeal costs unless either party applied for a different order within 14 days. If a costs hearing was requested within that period, the Registrar was to list one.