Judgment: 2023-12-18 · Court archive

High Court orders removal of three lis pendens over Clonsilla property

The court found unreasonable delay and concluded the proceedings were not being prosecuted bona fide for the purpose of maintaining the registrations. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claims.

High Court · [2023] IEHC 681

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Maria Dolores Fernandez Sanchez (Plaintiff)
  • Santiago Capital DAC
  • Liam Kennedy (Judge)
  • Graham Cawley
What

The court found unreasonable delay and concluded the proceedings were not being prosecuted bona fide for the purpose of maintaining the registrations. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claims.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Old Schoolhouse
  • Clonsilla
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 16 September 2022

    The proceedings were issued on 16 September 2022, and the three registrations followed that day and four days later. Santiago Capital disputed that it had been served with the plenary summons. The plaintiff said it had been served on Graham Cawley in September 2022, but the judge found that the evidence, including several late affidavits, did not establish even a prima facie case of valid service. The summons was not served until October 2023, after the issue had been raised in correspondence and in the application to remove the registrations.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has ordered three lis pendens registered over the Old Schoolhouse in Clonsilla to be set aside, finding that Maria Dolores Fernandez Sanchez unreasonably delayed in prosecuting the proceedings and that they were not being pursued bona fide for the purpose of maintaining the registrations.

The High Court has ordered three lis pendens registered over the Old Schoolhouse in Clonsilla to be set aside, finding that Maria Dolores Fernandez Sanchez unreasonably delayed in prosecuting the proceedings and that they were not being pursued bona fide for the purpose of maintaining the registrations.

Mr Justice Liam Kennedy’s ruling, delivered on 18 December 2023, concerned an application by Santiago Capital DAC under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The judge stressed that the application did not determine the merits of any substantive claim the plaintiff might pursue.

The proceedings were issued on 16 September 2022, and the three registrations followed that day and four days later. Santiago Capital disputed that it had been served with the plenary summons. The plaintiff said it had been served on Graham Cawley in September 2022, but the judge found that the evidence, including several late affidavits, did not establish even a prima facie case of valid service. The summons was not served until October 2023, after the issue had been raised in correspondence and in the application to remove the registrations.

The court found that the plaintiff had not delivered a statement of claim in these proceedings or taken meaningful steps to progress the litigation. It also noted that three sets of proceedings had been brought over substantially the same dispute, without an adequate explanation. The judge concluded that the third proceedings, which included a plea claiming a 50% interest in the property, appeared to have been issued to provide a basis for the registrations and gain leverage by hindering a sale. He found no evidence before him supporting a continuing interest in the property that would justify the lis pendens.

The judge said the registrations made the property harder to sell and reduced its price. He ordered all three lis pendens set aside on the grounds of unreasonable delay and lack of bona fide prosecution. The plaintiff remains entitled to continue the current proceedings, but the judgment says she must serve all parties and progress any continuing claim expeditiously. Her counsel undertook during the hearing that the first and second proceedings would be discontinued; the judge expected that undertaking to be honoured.

The court indicated that Santiago Capital appeared entitled to its costs. Either side may make written submissions on costs within 21 days, with a response permitted within 14 days; absent submissions, an order in the proposed terms will be made.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review