The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order recognising Mary Byrne’s title to a garden behind her home at 33 Brian Road, Marino, Dublin 3, acquired through adverse possession.
Mr Justice Meenan found that Byrne had both factual possession of the land and the intention to possess it. He concluded that title was acquired on 20 February 2008, 12 years after the expiry of a notice to quit. The judgment, delivered on 22 March 2018, concerned Byrne’s appeal from the Circuit Court; the High Court affirmed that court’s order.
Dublin County Council held the paper title to the plot and proposed dividing it among adjoining neighbours. The dispute followed Byrne’s renewed 2015 application to the Property Registration Authority for first registration based on long possession. The council and neighbours then began seeking access to and using the land, according to the judgment.
The land had been let in four plots to Byrne’s grandfather, Michael Byrne, in the early 1930s. The rent was paid until 1985. After her grandfather’s death, Byrne’s grandmother continued using the land, and the family maintained its grass and boundaries. Byrne bought 33 Brian Road in 1993 and said she had possessed the land exclusively since then.
The council served a notice to quit in December 1995, requiring the plot to be vacated by 19 February 1996. The council later said it intended to resume possession, but took no further steps to obtain it, the judge found. Byrne’s counsel submitted that the 12-year period began when the notice expired. The council argued that Byrne had acquired no interest in the land when she bought the house and that her use did not meet the legal test for adverse possession.
The judge assessed the land as a garden and considered whether Byrne used it in a way consistent with that purpose. He accepted evidence that she regularly mowed the grass, maintained boundaries and sometimes held family events there. Improvements made from 2009, including removing a greenhouse and adding a patio and barbecue area, did not mean her use as a garden began only then. He gave little weight to neighbours’ evidence that they rarely saw her in the garden, noting that she worked full-time and the garden could be viewed only from upstairs windows.
The judgment records that the council did not cut the grass, maintain the boundaries or provide access except through Byrne’s property. The court’s decision affirmed the Circuit Court order and found that title to the disputed plot had been acquired by adverse possession.