The High Court has ordered that ownership of the Iveagh Markets be considered in the first module of a trial arising from competing trespass claims. The constitutional challenge in the proceedings is to be heard in the final module if there is a modular trial.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 12 October 2023, Mr Justice Twomey said the title issues were complex and a decision on them could clarify or resolve other issues, including claims for damages. The court said separating those questions could save court time and the parties’ costs, and found no prejudice to the parties from a modular approach.
The plaintiffs, collectively referred to in the judgment as Mr Keane, allege that he entered possession after 1996 following a competition organised by Dublin City Council or its predecessor and a €2 million payment, expecting the council to transfer title. The judgment says that transfer has not occurred because of title issues. Mr Keane has sued Arthur Edward Rory Guinness, also known as Arthur Edward Rory Iveagh, for trespass. The defendant, referred to in the judgment as Lord Iveagh, counterclaimed for trespass and seeks a declaration that he owns the property, relying on an alleged reversionary interest inherited through succession. Dublin City Council says it has title. These are parties’ claims, not findings by the court.
The first module will focus primarily on the title claimed by Mr Keane and Lord Iveagh. Dublin City Council may also present submissions and evidence to establish its own claimed title. The court said it might not need to determine the council’s title if neither main claimant establishes title or if Lord Iveagh cannot establish the succession on which his claim depends. It also noted that someone else may have succeeded to the interest Lord Iveagh claims, but that person is not before the court. The judgment said the court’s primary purpose is to determine the trespass proceedings, not to conduct a general inquiry into ownership.
Dublin City Council opposed a modular trial, citing the possibility of an appeal delaying the wider dispute. The court accepted that possibility but considered that an earlier, focused title hearing could help resolve the case or support settlement. No title was determined in this preliminary application.
The court directed that the constitutional challenge to the Forcible Entry Act 1634 be dealt with last, if required. It noted that mediation had been attempted previously and encouraged the parties to consider mediation or settlement again. At the court’s request, counsel estimated that an eight-week trial could expose a losing party to about €1.2 million in legal costs. The judgment described that figure as a guesstimate and said remedial costs could mean the property’s market value was nil or negative; neither estimate was a court finding of value.