The High Court has struck out the plaintiffs’ case against Tailte Éireann and part of their claim against the Attorney General in a dispute arising from the sale and registration of land. A separate claim alleging inadequate State safeguards has been stayed while the plaintiffs’ claims against other defendants proceed.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2024, Mr Justice Conor Dignam considered an application by the Attorney General and Tailte Éireann to strike out the plaintiffs’ pleadings against them. The application argued that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were bound to fail, frivolous or vexatious.
The proceedings arise from a receiver’s sale of land owned by the first and second plaintiffs. The judgment records that the land was sold to the third defendant and that Tailte Éireann registered that defendant’s ownership on 30 January 2019. The plaintiffs allege the sale was unlawful and seek, among other relief, to have the register corrected. The judgment expressly leaves ownership disputed and makes no finding on it.
At the hearing, the plaintiffs clarified that they sought rectification of the register from Tailte Éireann if they succeeded against the other defendants, and were not alleging fraud against the State defendants. Tailte Éireann’s counsel told the court that it had no interest in who owned the land beyond its duty to maintain the register, and that it would correct the register if required after the other claims were determined.
The judge dismissed the case against Tailte Éireann, finding that the relief sought depended on the outcome of the claims against the other defendants and that maintaining the case offered no tangible benefit in light of the commitment given. He also concluded that statutory immunity under section 118 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 barred the pleaded claims, apart from fraud, which the plaintiffs had said they were not pursuing against Tailte Éireann.
The court also struck out the claim that the Attorney General was liable for supervising Tailte Éireann. The judge found that legislation providing for Tailte Éireann’s independence in performing its functions was inconsistent with that supervision claim.
A distinct claim alleges that the State failed to put adequate safeguards in place to prevent registration based on a wrongful or fraudulent transaction. The judge said it could not be ruled out at this stage, though it depended on the plaintiffs first succeeding against the other defendants and the register not being corrected to reflect that outcome. He stayed that claim pending determination of the claims against the third to ninth defendants. If the stay is lifted, the plaintiffs must amend their pleadings to sue Ireland and confine the State claim to that issue.
The judgment did not decide the underlying dispute over the sale or the remaining claims against the other defendants. The judge also declined to adjourn the hearing and said it was unnecessary to determine other grounds raised by the State defendants.