The High Court has agreed to appoint Bárr na Farraige Owner’s Management Company Limited by Guarantee as trustee of common lands at the Bárr na Farraige development in Achill Sound, Co Mayo, and to vest those lands in the company for the benefit of the development’s unit owners.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 2 February 2021, Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds found that the court had power to make the vesting order under sections 25 and 26 of the Trustee Act 1893. She said the dissolved developer and former management company were trustees who “cannot be found” for the purposes of section 26.
The development comprises 25 homes and was built by Vairex Limited in or about 1999. Under a management company agreement dated 8 March 1999, Vairex agreed to transfer the common areas to Orenwell Limited, which had been incorporated to own and manage them for the unit owners. The common lands are recorded in Folios MY36027F and MY22219F in the Register of Freeholders for County Mayo.
Vairex was dissolved in 2011 after failing to file accounts. Orenwell was dissolved in 2014 for the same reason. The applicant company was incorporated by residents in October 2020 to acquire and manage the common areas for the unit owners. The application said the title to those areas remained incomplete because both companies had been dissolved.
The court accepted the applicant’s comparison with an earlier High Court case, Re Heidelstone Company Limited and Courtview Management Limited. It also found that, because the lands were held in trust, they did not vest in the State when Vairex and Orenwell were dissolved. The Chief State Solicitor’s Office had confirmed it did not object and made no claim under section 28(2)(a) of the State Property Act 1954.
The Revenue Commissioners had been notified because Revenue judgment mortgages were registered on the folios. The parties reached an agreed position that the mortgages would be vacated, subject to a solicitor’s undertaking.
Justice Reynolds said she would grant the relief sought and hear from the applicant’s counsel about the form of the order. The judgment therefore records the court’s decision to grant the requested relief, while the formal order’s wording remained to be settled.