The Supreme Court has dismissed Gerard McHugh’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim to recover lands in County Galway that his mother transferred to his brothers in 1990. The Court held that, however the claim was characterised, statutory limitation periods prevented it from proceeding. It did not determine the merits of allegations that the transfer was improperly obtained.
McHugh had challenged a deed by which his late mother, Rita McHugh, transferred the lands to his brothers, Myles and Anthony McHugh. They became registered owners in February 1991. McHugh’s 1987 account of his mother’s will left her property to him, and probate was granted to him in 2011. He claimed that his mother had promised him the land and alleged that the deed resulted from undue influence, pressure and her incapacity. His brothers disputed those allegations and said he had returned to the family farm of his own choice.
The proceedings began in March 2004. In 2011, the brothers sought dismissal, relying on objections including lack of standing and statutory time limits. The High Court dismissed the claim in 2012, awarded costs against McHugh and entered judgment in default on the brothers’ counterclaim, with damages to be assessed. McHugh appealed.
The Supreme Court assessed the appeal on the pleaded case taken at its highest. It said it was not resolving the disputed accounts or conducting a trial on the deed’s validity. The Court noted that McHugh or his solicitors had obtained the relevant land folio in February 1998, which showed his brothers as registered owners.
The Court rejected the view that the claim was barred by section 9 of the Civil Liability Act 1961. It treated the proceedings as having been brought by McHugh personally to recover the land and held that section 13 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 applied. That provision required an action to recover land to be brought within 12 years of the right of action accruing. The summons issued in March 2004, more than 12 years after the transfer and registration, and the Court said no applicable provision extended that period. It concluded that the claim was bound to fail and dismissed the appeal.
The Court also questioned the High Court’s decision to enter judgment on the counterclaim without a normal hearing, particularly given the claimed special damages of almost €60,000. But the appeal hearing proceeded on the stated position that the brothers would not pursue the counterclaim if McHugh’s claim could not continue. The Court’s final order dismissed the appeal; it did not make findings on the underlying allegations.