The Supreme Court dismissed Dennis Dunne’s appeal in a dispute over land claimed through adverse possession, finding no error in the trial judge’s legal approach or its application to the evidence. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 28 July 2016. She agreed with the judgment of Mr Justice Charleton on the appeal’s other issues.
The High Court had found that Dunne did not establish the required adverse possession before 1993. It also found that actions by Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail and Córas Iompair Éireann from around 1993 onwards were sufficient to negative adverse possession. The Supreme Court concluded that Dunne had not shown either that the trial judge applied incorrect legal principles or that their application to the facts was erroneous.
The Supreme Court’s judgment described the applicable rule as requiring a claimant without paper title to establish factual possession and an intention to possess. The High Court had treated the paper owner’s threshold for showing continued possession as low, while requiring the claimant to show possession consistent with the ordinary use an owner could make of the land.
The respondents’ actions included incorporating part of the disputed land into works at Clondalkin railway station and building new fences during station renovation and modernisation. Dunne accepted in evidence that workers for the respondents were on the land for a year and a half between 1993 and 1995. In 2001, a contractor entered the land to repair fences after a complaint from an adjoining owner. The Supreme Court said these acts differed in nature from merely visiting land and looking over a hedge or gate, as considered in another case.
Dunne’s written appeal submissions raised questions about whether minimal acts by an owner could stop time running after possession had been lost or abandoned. The Court said that issue did not arise: the trial judge had found that Dunne had not established adverse possession by 1993, and that the respondents’ actions from then were sufficient to negative it. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to comment on the test for repossession.
The Court noted that the appeal illustrated continuing controversy about adverse possession law and said there appeared to be a need to review Law Reform Commission recommendations. That observation did not change the outcome: the appeal was dismissed.