The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick Doyle’s appeal against an order removing a lis pendens registered against land in County Carlow and restraining him from registering further lis pendens in relation to it.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Allen on 26 July 2024, affirms the High Court’s decision. The appeal concerned a lis pendens Doyle registered in November 2016 in connection with proceedings against Allied Irish Banks plc and receiver John Coulston. The plenary summons was never served on either defendant.
The High Court found that the proceedings and lis pendens were not initiated or pursued bona fide, that there had been unreasonable delay, and that the action and registration were intended to frustrate a sale of the property. Those findings were not appealed. The High Court later ordered the lis pendens vacated and barred Doyle from registering another one against the land.
Doyle challenged the receiver’s standing to seek those orders, the High Court’s jurisdiction and the court’s finding that Coulston had been validly appointed. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory power under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 applies to a properly registered lis pendens, while the High Court also has inherent jurisdiction to address registrations that do not meet the statutory requirements and to prevent abuse of court process.
On standing, the Court of Appeal accepted that Coulston’s initial claim that the lis pendens impeded a sale was not supported by a power of sale. However, Coulston later gave evidence that it had caused difficulty collecting rent and had continued to affect efforts to rent or otherwise deal with the property. The court said that evidence was uncontroverted and found no error in the High Court’s conclusion that Coulston was a person affected by the lis pendens.
The appellate court also declined to interfere with the restraint on future registrations. It held that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction could extend to preventing an apprehended future abuse of the lis pendens process. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court judgment and order. It said Coulston was entitled to his costs, while allowing Doyle ten days from electronic delivery to make a written submission seeking a different costs order; Coulston would then have ten days to respond.