Judgment: 2002-07-08 · Court archive

Supreme Court rejects Foynes solicitor’s bid to keep property sale case registered against port company land

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Bernard Cunnane (Plaintiff)
  • Shannon Foynes Port Company (Defendant)
  • Foynes Aviation and Maritime Museum
What

Supreme Court rejects Foynes solicitor’s bid to keep property sale case registered against port company land

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Foynes
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Francis D. Murphy, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, held that registrable proceedings must claim some interest in land. That interest need not already exist when proceedings begin, but success in the action must be capable of producing a right in or against the property.

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Foynes solicitor Bernard Cunnane seeking to maintain a registration against Aras Ide, a property owned by Shannon Foynes Port Company in County Limerick.

The port company agreed on 11 May 2001 to sell the premises to Foynes Aviation and Maritime Museum Ltd for £250,000. The property had been valued by DeCourcy’s Auctioneers and Valuers at £210,000. Under the Harbours Act 1996, land sold by a port company must, so far as practicable, not be sold for less than open market value.

Mr Cunnane had occupied part of Aras Ide as a tenant since November 1993 and ran his solicitor’s practice there. He commenced High Court proceedings in June 2001, claiming that his position as a tenant and potential purchaser entitled him to have any bid he might make considered when determining the property’s open market value.

He then registered those proceedings as a lis pendens against the property. A lis pendens is a formal registration warning potential purchasers that litigation may affect rights in land.

The High Court ordered that registration removed in July 2001. Mr Cunnane appealed.

Mr Justice Francis D. Murphy, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, held that registrable proceedings must claim some interest in land. That interest need not already exist when proceedings begin, but success in the action must be capable of producing a right in or against the property.

Mr Cunnane had no option to purchase and no right of first refusal. Even if he succeeded fully in establishing that the port company should place the property on the open market, he would merely obtain an opportunity to bid. Success would not itself make him an owner or give him any proprietary interest.

The Supreme Court therefore held that the proceedings could not support a lis pendens and dismissed the appeal. The ruling did not decide the merits of Mr Cunnane’s underlying challenge to the proposed sale.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review