The Court of Appeal has dismissed Mark Monks’ appeal against orders striking out proceedings he brought over four parcels of land and restricting further claims concerning them without court permission.
The appeal concerned orders made by the High Court on 9 October 2017. The High Court struck out proceedings issued by Monks three days earlier, vacated a lis pendens he had registered against the properties and made an Isaac Wunder order requiring him to obtain permission before bringing further proceedings or registering another lis pendens concerning the four parcels. The Court of Appeal affirmed those orders.
The dispute followed a 2017 High Court trial about McCabe’s Field, part of Folio 2591R. The High Court found that the Irish Aviation Authority and daa Public Limited Company had good title, rejected Monks’ claim to ownership by adverse possession and granted permanent injunctions. That judgment was not appealed.
Monks’ October 2017 proceedings claimed beneficial ownership of four parcels and sought, among other relief, to invalidate a 1992 sale contract. At the appeal hearing, his counsel described a narrower claim to a plot of about 1.6 acres across the road from McCabe’s Field. The Court of Appeal said no affidavit evidence supported that claim and counsel could not identify its legal basis.
The appeal court held the claims were bound to fail. It relied on earlier proceedings in which a 2003 High Court order required Monks to deliver up possession of specified lands, and on a 2004 settlement involving possession of the lands and payment of money. It also noted that Monks was not a party to the 1992 sale contract, that the ownership claim to McCabe’s Field had already been rejected after trial, and that the October proceedings were issued shortly before a scheduled hearing on restrictions sought by the plaintiffs.
The court also rejected Monks’ fair-procedures argument that the High Court had made a wider restriction than the notices of motion requested. It said he knew the wider order was being sought, was present and had an opportunity to argue against it. The order still allows him to apply for permission to bring proceedings concerning the scheduled properties and does not bar proceedings about unrelated matters.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court acted within its powers, observed fair procedures and made a proportionate order in the circumstances. It dismissed the appeal.