The District Court ordered An Garda Síochána to deliver a 1972 Porsche 911 2.4 Turbo to the second claimant after finding that claimant had become its owner before the first claimant attempted to buy it.
Judge Brian O’Shea delivered the judgment at Dublin District Court on 27 March 2018. The application concerned property held by gardaí under a District Court warrant. The respondent, Garda Cathal Middleton, did not wish to retain the car, leaving the dispute between John King and Peter Sinclair, both of whom claimed ownership and sought its delivery.
The court heard testimony from the respondent about the police investigation and from both claimants about their separate sale contracts and the sums they paid. Judge O’Shea accepted that both claimants had testified honestly, cooperated with the investigation and made reasonable inquiries, including online searches, before buying. He also accepted that both genuinely believed they had valid contracts and that both had suffered losses. The different sums paid were explained in evidence and were not treated as decisive.
The judge found the second claimant had contracted to buy the car by paying a deposit on 13 March 2017 and the balance on 20 March. The evidence did not establish whether the contract reserved title until the balance was paid, but the court said the purchase was complete by 20 March at the latest.
The first claimant became aware the car was for sale around the end of March or beginning of April 2017. He travelled to Spain in May, viewed and drove it, and entered into and fulfilled the terms of a purported sale contract. By then, the court found, the second claimant already owned the car, so the later contract could not be valid.
Applying the Police Property Act 1897, the court refused the first claimant’s application and granted the second claimant’s application for delivery. It clarified that “delivery” referred to the statutory order and did not impose another obligation on the respondent or the State.
The court made no order on costs. Judge O’Shea said the first hearing had been adjourned after the first claimant had not been told about the competing claimant, who was later added to the proceedings. While costs against the respondent might otherwise have been appropriate, the District Court had no statutory power to award them in this case.