The Court of Appeal has allowed Teresa Minogue’s appeal over compensation for the compulsory acquisition of Minogue’s Pub in Bodyke, Co Clare. It proposed an order for payment to her of the full €165,000 lodged in court, plus any interest and after charges.
The judgment was delivered by Humphreys J. on 29 March 2021, with Whelan and Pilkington JJ. agreeing. The court set aside the High Court order, which had directed payment of €50,000 to Ms Minogue as personal representative of her late husband, Denis Minogue. The Court of Appeal’s proposed replacement order is under section 78 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. The judgment also set out a provisional approach to costs and allowed either party 14 days to seek a further hearing on costs.
Clare County Council compulsorily acquired the derelict site under the Derelict Sites Act 1990. A vesting order took effect on 7 June 2005, transferring the site to the council. The property arbitrator later awarded €165,000 plus costs and expenses, but said he had assumed the title claimed by Mr Minogue was correct. The council paid the €165,000 into court in 2017 because it was not satisfied that he had proved that title.
In the High Court, Ms Minogue sought payment of compensation from the funds lodged. The judge treated her husband’s interest as a yearly tenancy with a right to renew, but did not include a possible right to buy out the freehold when assessing its value. She refused requests to adjourn for further rent evidence and valuation evidence, and set the interest at €50,000 without expert valuation evidence.
On appeal, Ms Minogue argued that her husband had acquired the freehold through adverse possession. The Court of Appeal considered additional documents admitted on appeal, including a 1990 memorial recording that the last rent payment was made in 1975. It reasoned that, given the rent dates, the 12-year limitation period would have expired by 1988 at the latest. The court also considered his subletting and absence in England, his continued receipt of any rents or profits, his belongings remaining at the property, and his assertions of freehold ownership.
The court concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Minogue met the requirements for acquiring the freehold reversion by adverse possession and was to be treated as freeholder for compensation purposes. It said Ms Minogue was therefore entitled to the full sum lodged. It also addressed alternative arguments about a statutory right to enlarge a leasehold interest and the High Court’s refusal to adjourn, but those alternatives were not the basis of the proposed full-payment order.
The court’s judgment records a proposed order and provisional costs terms, including no costs order against the council. The source does not record whether a further costs hearing was requested or the final perfected order.