The High Court has dismissed a developer’s claim for damages over land it bought in Liscannor, Co Clare, ruling that it had not proved the seller lacked title to a disputed portion when the sale completed in 2005.
Atlantis Developments Limited, which was in receivership, sued Patrick Considine over its purchase of a property for €1 million. The company claimed that part of the land belonged to Liscannor Development Company Limited, which was later registered as its owner after an application based on adverse possession.
The developer argued that the second company had acquired a possessory title before the sale, so Mr Considine breached title covenants by transferring the land. It also complained that replies to pre-sale title questions incorrectly said no one had made an adverse claim.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy said the developer’s case depended on proving that the second company had possessed the land with the intention of excluding the owner for an uninterrupted 12-year period, without sufficient acts of ownership by the title holder. The court was not satisfied that the developer had established either requirement.
The second company’s director, Andrew Curry, said his organisation agreed in about 1978 to buy the land from Mr Considine’s father for £300. He acknowledged that the price was never paid and the sale was never completed. He also said the wall around the field and part of the community hall were built with the father’s consent.
The judge found that the company’s solicitors’ letters in 2000 and 2001 supported an inference that it intended by then to claim the land. But the evidence did not show when that intention began or establish 12 years of possession sufficient to displace the owners’ title. Evidence also showed that Mr Considine regularly grazed animals on the field over many years. The judge found that use amounted to sufficient acts of ownership, despite concerns that some testimony about its extent was exaggerated.
The second company had been registered as owner in 2010 after the developer did not collect notice of its application and did not appeal the registration. The judge said that later registration did not establish that the company had title at the time of the 2005 sale. On the evidence heard in the case, Mr Considine had been able to convey good title, and there was no breach of covenant on that basis.
The judge also found no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. Although the pre-sale replies were incorrect about the existence of a prior claim, he accepted that Mr Considine was unaware of the earlier letters. He said the developer’s loss of title resulted from its decision not to contest the 2010 registration or appeal the Property Registration Authority’s decision. The judge considered the developer would likely have retained title had it challenged the application, based on the evidence in this case.
The court dismissed the claim in its entirety. The judge’s provisional view was that Mr Considine was entitled to his costs. The parties were given time to file submissions on costs, and the case was listed for mention on 8 December 2023.