The High Court has ordered a title correction for five properties at Brandon Terrace, Dublin 8, vesting any part of the unexpired leasehold term not already held by two companies in those companies.
The order followed a title investigation that found errors in an 1878 lease and its map. The properties are Nos. 1, 1A, 2, 3 and 4 Brandon Terrace, at Long’s Place. The lease created a 400-year term, but its stated boundary measurements and map did not match the properties on the ground.
Architect Adrian Hill’s 2007 survey put the western boundary at 148 feet, compared with 120 feet in the lease, and the eastern and southern boundary by the canal at 229 feet, compared with 156 feet in the lease. He also compared the lease map with Ordnance Survey maps dating from 1864 and 1907 and other title maps. He concluded that the lease map was inaccurate. Justice Laffoy described his opinion as “totally convincing” and found that the lease’s measurements and depiction of the land intended to be demised were incorrect.
The application was brought in the name of Ray Church, a director of Dundonnell Estates Limited and Linford Limited. The judgment said the real applicant was Kelpach Optima Properties Limited, which acquired the issued share capital of both companies in 2007. Dundonnell held interests relating to Nos. 1, 1A, 2 and 4; Linford held the leasehold interest in No. 3.
Church had sought appointment as trustee and an order vesting the lessors’ interests in him, so he could assign the interests to the companies. The court instead made a one-stage vesting order under section 26 of the Trustee Act 1893. It covers the premises as shown on Hill’s site map dated 17 September 2007, for the unexpired residue of the 400-year term from 24 January 1878, and only insofar as the properties are not already vested in the companies.
The court said it would be inappropriate, on the evidence, to transfer all the lessors’ estate, right, title and interest. The order concerns only the leasehold term in any premises intended to be demised but not effectively included because of the errors; the lessors were understood to have retained a reversion. Justice Laffoy described the order as a “belt and braces” measure, noting reservations about whether it was necessary given how the leasehold title had been dealt with for more than a century.