The Supreme Court ruled that a 12-year limitation period applies to an action by the Chief State Solicitor to recover a Dublin house forming part of an intestate estate that passes to the State. The Court answered questions of law referred by the Circuit Court; it did not determine the underlying claim for possession.
The case concerns 6 Enniskerry Road. Alice Dolan had been allowed to occupy the house after Dublin Corporation arranged to acquire it in exchange for her house at 36 Botanic Road, which was needed for road widening. An assignment dated 15 December 1978 was executed by the vendors and the Corporation, but not by Dolan. The judgment says she became entitled to the leasehold interest under that assignment.
Dolan died intestate on 22 October 1981. According to facts agreed or found by the trial judge, Desmond Grogan learned of her death and the apparent absence of next of kin through his auctioneering business, then broke into the premises through the back door in February 1982. These are background facts set out in the case stated, not findings made by the Supreme Court in its decision on the legal questions.
Letters of administration were granted in 2000 to Laurence A. Farrell, Chief State Solicitor, on behalf of the State. Proceedings seeking, among other relief, an injunction requiring Grogan to vacate and give up possession were issued in May 2002. The case stated asked the Supreme Court whether the Chief State Solicitor was a State authority under the Statute of Limitations 1957, which limitation provision applied, and whether section 65 of the Succession Act 1965 affected the answer.
The Court held that the statutory definition did not include the Chief State Solicitor. The Attorney General’s administrative control of the Chief State Solicitor’s Department did not expand that definition. The Court therefore ruled that the 12-year period for a person other than a State authority applied, rather than the 30-year period for a State authority.
The Court also said section 65 of the Succession Act did not alter the limitation periods in the 1957 Act. It answered the third question “No”. The judgment determined the referred legal questions; it did not itself order Grogan to vacate or decide the possession claim.