The High Court has ordered the removal of lis pendens notices from ten land folios after finding that the proceedings behind them had not been pursued bona fide and had been left inactive for more than seven years.
Mr Justice Dignam’s judgment, delivered on 24 August 2023, joined Seaconview DAC and receiver Declan Taite as notice parties so they could apply to vacate the notices. The court granted that application. It did not end the underlying proceedings, which remain in being, or decide whether Seaconview can ultimately enforce the loans or security.
The notices were registered in January 2017 in proceedings brought by Pat Hayes against Declan Geary and Marie Geary. Hayes’s claim sought declarations that he owned specified shares in a number of properties. In correspondence and affidavits, however, Hayes and the Gearys described the dispute as arising from cattle stock supplied to the defendants, for which payment was said to be due. They described the notices as security for that debt.
The court said a lis pendens notifies prospective purchasers that someone claims an interest in land; it is not itself a charge or lien securing a debt. The judgment found that the proceedings had been issued to facilitate registration of the notices, rather than to pursue a properly substantiated land claim. It also noted that no statement of claim had been delivered and no steps had been taken to advance the case since the plenary summons was issued in July 2016, despite the issue being raised in correspondence in 2019.
Seaconview held registered charges over six of the folios and had a noted interest in liens over four others. Taite had been appointed receiver over five properties. The plaintiff and defendants argued, among other things, that the applicants lacked standing because the transfer of the underlying loans to Seaconview was not established. The court held that their registered security interests were enough to make them “persons affected” by the notices. Whether they could enforce the security, including whether the loans had been transferred, would have to be decided if enforcement proceedings were brought.
The court found both unreasonable delay and that the action was not being prosecuted bona fide. It rejected illness and reluctance to proceed against friends as sufficient explanations for leaving the case untouched, and said the proceedings could have been advanced even if the plaintiff wished to avoid a contested hearing. The order removes the notices; it does not resolve the parties’ separate dispute over the debt, land interests or enforceability of the security.