Judgment: 2018-07-31 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses three appeals in Sandymount property dispute

The court upheld an interlocutory injunction, a correction to the property address in its order and the refusal to dismiss the underlying proceedings. Finsbury Circle’s claim to title remains for trial.

Court of Appeal · [2018] IECA 269

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Finsbury Circle Nominee Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Mary Watt (Defendant)
What

The court upheld an interlocutory injunction, a correction to the property address in its order and the refusal to dismiss the underlying proceedings. Finsbury Circle’s claim to title remains for trial.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • 12 Sandymount Drive
  • Glasheen
  • County Cork
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Watt also appealed the High Court’s amendment of the injunction order to correct the address from No. 2 to No. 12 Sandymount Drive. The appeal court said she had been put on notice of the proposed amendment and had not attended to contest it. It found no demonstrated prejudice and rejected the appeal.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed three appeals by Mary Watt concerning Finsbury Circle Nominee Limited’s claim for possession of a property at 12 Sandymount Drive, Glasheen, County Cork.

In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2018, Mrs Justice Irvine said the High Court had sufficient evidence to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining Watt and unknown persons from entering or trespassing on the property. The High Court also prohibited her from collecting rent or other payments from it and directed her to pay Finsbury any such income she had collected.

Finsbury claims the property was mortgaged to National Irish Bank in 2005 and that it later acquired title through a receiver. Watt disputed Finsbury’s entitlement to possession, arguing, among other things, that the receiver’s appointment and the transfer of the mortgage were invalid. The appeal court said the evidence supported a serious question to be tried about Finsbury’s entitlement. It expressly left Watt able to contest Finsbury’s title at the hearing of the action; title was not determined on the injunction application.

Watt also appealed the High Court’s amendment of the injunction order to correct the address from No. 2 to No. 12 Sandymount Drive. The appeal court said she had been put on notice of the proposed amendment and had not attended to contest it. It found no demonstrated prejudice and rejected the appeal.

The third appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal to dismiss Finsbury’s case as bound to fail or for not disclosing a cause of action. Irvine said the court order showed that the application had been determined, despite the absence of a written judgment. She concluded that the claim disclosed an arguable cause of action and that the earlier finding of a serious question to be tried was inconsistent with dismissing the proceedings as bound to fail.

All three appeals were dismissed. The judgment did not finally decide Finsbury’s claim to ownership or possession.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review