The Court of Appeal has dismissed Tullagower Quarries Limited’s appeal seeking to change the boundaries recorded for land transferred to Lagan Bitumen Limited in County Clare. The appeal was confined to whether the Property Registration Authority’s map should be rectified under section 32 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.
The dispute concerned two parcels transferred by Tullagower to Whelan’s Limestone Quarries Limited in 2004. The transfer documents described the land as measuring 11.185 acres. Folio 52291F, later transferred to Lagan Bitumen, recorded about 12.726 acres. Tullagower argued that the recorded boundaries included land it had not agreed to sell.
The High Court had rejected Tullagower’s counterclaim for rectification. Its trial was limited to the boundaries between Folios 52291F and 19816F; the separate right-of-way dispute was not decided at that trial. Tullagower appealed the full judgment but narrowed its appeal to a section 32 claim that the registered map should be changed to match a 2003 map prepared by Dan Liddy.
Section 32 applies to errors originating in the Land Registry during registration. The Court of Appeal said it does not cover errors in the transfer document itself. Tullagower contended that the Land Registry had produced the map used to open Folio 52291F and that its boundaries differed from the Liddy map.
The court found there was no evidence establishing who created the map dated 7 November 2011 or where its parcel outlines came from. It said the Land Registry had raised queries about the registration application and that the applicant’s solicitors had asked it to proceed using that map. The Authority was entitled to act on those instructions and had not made an error within the meaning of section 32, the court said.
The appeal court also rejected Tullagower’s complaint that the High Court had failed to address its section 32 argument. It concluded that the trial judge understood and rejected the claim on the evidence presented. Whether Lagan Bitumen had received more land than intended was outside the issue on this appeal: the court said that question could arise only if section 32 applied.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It did not determine the separate right-of-way dispute or whether the land transfer had resulted in unjust enrichment.