The High Court has refused to divide a shared car park serving commercial premises in Bray, dismissing an application by Yippi Trading Limited for partition of the land.
The dispute concerns a car park held in equal shares by Yippi and the legal personal representatives of the late Joseph Costello. The land lies between five commercial units managed by Yippi and the Raven’s Hall development, built on the former Sunnybank Inn site.
A 1980 agreement requires the co-owners to use the land as a car park and access route, share maintenance and marking costs, and cooperate in managing its use. Yippi sought separate ownership of parts of the car park, saying its tenants had faced disruption during construction and that outsiders now used the spaces. It also raised changes to the land and difficulty accessing its units for deliveries. Its claim for damages for nuisance and trespass was withdrawn; the partition application remained.
The defendants accepted that construction had caused disruption and that unauthorised parking was a problem, but opposed dividing the land. They argued the 1980 agreement should be enforced and proposed joint management measures, including permits, a barrier or pay-and-display parking. Their witnesses also described potential access and management complications if the site were split.
Evidence differed on the number of spaces and the effects of construction. The judge said the spaces were not marked and their number could only be estimated. He did not base his decision on possible planning permission requirements or a potential reduction in property value.
The court said section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 gave it discretion to grant or refuse relief, and that partition must be practicable and legally feasible. In this case, the parties’ access rights overlapped, splitting the spaces would leave some land in common ownership, and mutual rights of way would still require joint management. The judge also found that the 1980 management arrangement had not failed because it had not been tried.
The court dismissed the partition application without making an order. The judgment left open the possibility of a later agreement or application if circumstances changed.