The High Court has refused, at this stage, to remove a lis pendens registered against land in County Mayo, leaving the application to be heard alongside the underlying dispute.
The application was brought by Keith Gannon, who asked the court to vacate the registration affecting Folio 8576F. Mr Gannon was later joined as a co-defendant in the separate proceedings over the land. The court ordered that the two sets of proceedings be linked and adjourned his application to the hearing of the plenary proceedings.
The dispute began with proceedings issued by Cathal Young and Odran Young in February 2004. They sought specific performance of an agreement for the sale of the land to Odran Young in trust for Cathal Young, at a stated price of €76,000. A lis pendens was registered against the folio later that year.
Mr Gannon’s evidence was that he had agreed to buy the land from the vendors for €120,000 in 2003, paid the full amount and received a transfer. The contract and conveyancing documents recorded €80,000. He said €40,000 had been paid separately through a property agent, and that he later notified the Revenue Commissioners of the underpayment of stamp duty and paid the shortfall, surcharge and interest. He was registered as owner in April 2005.
After Mr Gannon was joined to the proceedings, the Youngs pleaded that his purchase contract was fraudulent and illegal, that it was intended to defeat their claim, and that he had actual or constructive notice of their interest. They sought orders setting aside the sale and rectifying the folio. Those remain allegations in the pleadings; the judgment records that no defence had been delivered and the plenary case had not progressed beyond the amended statement of claim.
The judge said the application turned on whether the Youngs were prosecuting their claim against Mr Gannon bona fide. The court could not conclude that they were bound to fail: factual issues remained on fraud and notice. The judge criticised the general lack of particulars in the fraud allegation, but said that did not resolve the outstanding factual disputes.
The court did not decide whether the separate payment or the later Revenue payment affected Mr Gannon’s title. It refused to vacate the lis pendens “at this juncture” and adjourned the application to the plenary hearing. The judgment did not determine ownership or the underlying allegations.