Judgment: 2017-01-11 · Court archive

High Court orders defendant to keep away from land in trespass appeal

The court held Gerard Stack was the lawful owner, rejected Stephen Simpson’s defence and ordered him to cease trespassing. It said it did not need to formally decide whether Simpson had lied.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 88

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Stephen Simpson (Defendant)
What

The court held Gerard Stack was the lawful owner, rejected Stephen Simpson’s defence and ordered him to cease trespassing. It said it did not need to formally decide whether Simpson had lied.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has ordered Stephen Simpson to stop trespassing on land and to keep away from it, after finding that Gerard Stack was its lawful owner.

The High Court has ordered Stephen Simpson to stop trespassing on land and to keep away from it, after finding that Gerard Stack was its lawful owner.

In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 11 January 2017, Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal from a Circuit Court decision. The judgment describes the action as effectively a trespass claim. The plaintiffs alleged Simpson was trespassing; he denied that and claimed he owned the land, saying he had bought it from the late Mr Dillon on 18 March 1998.

The judge said Simpson did not dispute that Stack had purchased the land and was its legal owner. Instead, Simpson maintained that he owned it. The court heard evidence from Simpson’s former solicitor, who said Simpson had not told her he had bought the land or shown her a receipt when he first sought advice. She said she investigated the registered ownership and advised that he might have a claim based on 12 years’ adverse possession.

The judge described that evidence as the most important in the case. He said he had no doubt Stack was the lawful owner and considered Simpson’s account untruthful. He said it was possible Simpson had paid money to Dillon, but that he did not know whether this had happened. The judge expressly said he did not have to formally decide whether Simpson had lied or whether he had ever bought the land to resolve the appeal.

The court rejected the entirety of Simpson’s defence and held for the plaintiffs. Its orders require Simpson to cease any act of trespass, not touch, approach or encroach on the land, and not use it. The judgment warns that enforcement proceedings could follow if he disobeys. It does not identify the land’s location or specify its boundaries.

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