The High Court found that Oakley Park Developments Limited trespassed on the Abraham family’s property during a dispute over a garden boundary and awarded the two homeowners €31,500 in damages and works costs.
In a judgment delivered on 8 December 2016, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor found that the disputed boundary between the plaintiffs’ registered land and the developer’s land followed the physical line asserted by the homeowners. The court said the Land Registry maps and transfer relied on by the developer were not conclusive.
The dispute concerned a narrow strip beside the family’s garden, including part of a shed. The court relied on evidence that the Abrahams and their predecessors had occupied the strip, and that fencing and other conduct by both sides supported their account of the boundary until August 2013. The developer had also used the claimed boundary line in a planning application. The court noted that the developer’s 2000 contract required it to satisfy itself about the land’s boundaries.
The disagreement escalated after a survey in August 2013 identified a possible mismatch between mapping and the boundary on the ground. The judge accepted evidence that, on 29 August, the developer’s director instructed employees to remove part of the garden fence and that a mark was put on the plaintiffs’ shed. The court found that the employees trespassed, including by entering the garden to demolish the fence and mark the shed. It also found that the developer’s conduct amounted to a form of harassment and intimidation, and unlawfully interfered with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their family home.
The court awarded €15,000 to each plaintiff in general damages and €1,500 for replacement works. It did not award aggravated damages; none had been claimed. The judgment asked counsel to help formulate an order that would reflect the findings and allow a conclusive boundary between the relevant folios to be registered.
An addendum records that on 8 February 2017 the parties submitted a map and proposed terms. The court made an order along those lines and granted a limited stay in the event of an appeal. The source does not state whether an appeal followed.