The High Court has declared that Vico Rock Property Management Limited owns the turning area beside Skyview House in Dalkey, rejecting James and Tracy Delaney’s claim to the land. It also found that vehicles placed on the area had substantially interfered with Mark Pigott’s right of way to his home, Cassini.
In a judgment delivered on 21 May 2019, Ms Justice Faherty considered three sets of proceedings: Pigott’s claim concerning the right of way and alleged obstruction; his application under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act; and the Delaneys’ claim to be registered as owners of the turning area.
The Delaneys argued that a 1994 conveyance from Brian Gill Contractors to Shawcross Limited had mistakenly left the turning area off the property map, and relied on later conveyances, including a 2015 deed of rectification. The judge found no evidence from Brian Gill Contractors or its original conveyancers to establish a mutual mistake. She said later documents, including a 1995 parking licence covering a space on the turning area, were inconsistent with an intention to transfer it to Shawcross. She gave no weight to the 2015 deed and found the Delaneys’ ownership claim had not been made out.
Vico relied on a 1999 deed transferring common areas from Brian Gill Contractors. Although the deed lacked a map referred to in its text, the judge accepted evidence about the land measurements and surrounding conveyances. She found that the common areas transferred to Vico included the turning area and declared Vico its owner. Pigott’s separate claim to own boundary walls around the area was not established; the judge found the walls stood on Vico’s land and belonged to Vico.
The judge found that a boat placed on the area in 2009 encroached on Pigott’s right of way. She also found that a container, cars and marked parking spaces encroached on it after the Pigotts moved into Cassini in 2014. Accepting the evidence of Pigott’s engineering expert, she concluded that parked vehicles made access substantially more difficult and less convenient. The court rejected the Delaneys’ argument that Pigott’s entrance configuration defeated his claim. It said it was disposed to grant the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in the plenary proceedings, but would hear the parties on the terms of the necessary orders. The judgment therefore did not set out the final form of those orders.
The court declined Pigott’s requested section 160 relief. It found insufficient basis to prohibit use of Apartment 20, noted that equivalent parking and right-of-way relief could be addressed in the plenary proceedings, and was not persuaded that removal of eight gas cylinders was necessary. It left their continued presence on Vico’s land for Vico and the Delaneys to resolve.