The Court of Appeal dismissed the Property Registration Authority’s appeal against an order requiring it to pay Peter Walsh’s costs of judicial review proceedings. The appeal concerned the costs order only; the court did not decide the competing claims to the land.
Coillte Teo. had applied under section 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 to be registered as owner of lands in County Mayo on the basis of adverse possession. Walsh had been the registered owner since 1986. In January 2013, the Authority notified him of Coillte’s application and invited him to show good cause against it within 21 days of receiving the letter.
Walsh’s solicitors objected and requested Coillte’s affidavit. The Authority sent the affidavit on 5 February 2013 and asked for a replying affidavit setting out the legal grounds of objection within one month. Walsh’s solicitors later said they were preparing his affidavit and asked the Authority to confirm that it would not decide the application beforehand. However, the Authority had already registered Coillte as owner on 13 March, apparently because no replying affidavit had arrived within the period it set.
Walsh’s solicitors objected to the registration, saying their client had not been told it would proceed before he could respond. They warned that judicial review proceedings were imminent and that Walsh would seek his costs if the registration was not vacated. The Authority declined to reverse the registration, citing the lack of a timely affidavit and noting that no extension had been requested.
The High Court granted Walsh leave to bring judicial review proceedings in June 2013. The Authority entered an appearance but did not oppose the application. In November, the High Court quashed the registration by consent. It later awarded Walsh his costs against the Authority. The Authority appealed that costs order, arguing that its land registration functions were quasi-judicial and that it should have immunity from costs because it had not actively contested the judicial review.
The Court of Appeal held that this case did not involve the Authority adjudicating between competing claims to the land. In consenting to the registration being quashed, the Authority had effectively acknowledged that its procedures were unfair, including its failure to give Walsh a more extended opportunity to make submissions or explicitly warn him of the consequences of not filing the affidavit in time.
The court said the question of institutional immunity for a body exercising adjudicatory functions did not arise on these facts. It left open the wider question of whether such immunity might apply in a case where a statutory body had exercised adjudicatory powers. The court concluded that the Authority had performed routine administrative functions and dismissed its appeal, leaving the High Court costs order in place.