The Supreme Court has ruled that a 30-year limitation period applies to a State claim for possession of a Dublin house occupied by Desmond Grogan since 1982. The ruling answered legal questions referred by the Circuit Court; it did not decide whether Grogan had acquired the property by adverse possession or make a possession order.
The case arose from proceedings brought by David J. O’Hagan, personal representative of the estate of Alice Dolan, seeking possession of the house at 6 Enniskerry Road, an injunction against trespass and other relief. Dolan died intestate in 1981. The agreed or proven facts recorded in the judgment say Grogan entered the house in February 1982 and remained there with Mary Grogan. Letters of Administration were granted in 2000 to the then Chief State Solicitor for the State. O’Hagan later succeeded him as personal representative.
Grogan argued that his possession had run adversely to the President of the High Court, in whom an intestate estate temporarily vests before administration, and that the relevant period was 12 years. He relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Gleeson v Feehan (No. 2). The Court said the President held only a temporary bare estate and had no sufficient interest against which adverse possession could be claimed. It also said Grogan had not counterclaimed against the President, who was not a party to the proceedings.
The Court rejected the argument that the personal representative himself was a “State authority” under the Statute of Limitations. The statutory list did not include the Chief State Solicitor, and the Attorney General’s control of that office did not make it a State authority.
However, the Court held that the applicable limitation period depended on the interest represented by the administrator. The State was the ultimate intestate successor to Dolan’s estate, and the administrator could rely on the limitation period applicable to the State. The Court therefore held that the 30-year period under section 13(1) applied, rather than the 12-year period for a private person. It also concluded that the relation-back rule did not prevent time from running against the estate between Dolan’s death and the grant of administration, and that section 65 of the Succession Act did not alter the limitation period.
The Court’s answers were that O’Hagan was not a State authority, section 13(1)’s 30-year period applied, and section 65 did not affect that conclusion. The underlying Circuit Court proceedings remained to determine the possession claim and Grogan’s adverse-possession defence.