Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in proceedings brought by the owner of a property adjacent to a laneway: (a) refuses injunctive relief against a mortgagee of neighbouring properties concerning easements over the laneway; and (b) grants declarations in favour of the mortgagee that it was entitled to a right of way, and wayleaves in respect of services under the laneway, on the grounds of estoppel, in that the plaintiff had consented to the construction of the buildings and had envisaged a formal grant of rights.
Plaintiff is seeking declarations against the defendants who are her husband, his business partner and a Company - first and second named defendants bought site with borrowings from financial institution - this site is adjacent to a second site - in 2008 planning permission was secured to build houses on the site - further borrowings were approved in March 2008 to refinance the initial loan - in October 2011 the plaintiff agreed to purchase the superior long leasehold title to the family home - interest of financial institution is now held by the third named defendant by virtue of an assignment from March 2012 - following demands for repayment of the loan, the third named defendant, pursuant to the provisions of the Mortgage, appointed joint receivers over the property, by Deed of Appointment dated the 23rd of August, 2016 - after the appointment of receivers, the plaintiff issued High Court plenary proceedings which proceedings were not served by the plaintiff, but a lis pendens was registered against the property - claim of plaintiff is that the defendants have no rights over the second site and an injunction prohibiting them from the second site - third named defendant seeks declaration that they have the rights to the second site - dispute over laneway between properties - mapping evidence at trial - significant discovery in case - legal submissions of both parties - third named defendant claims a right of way from 1923 deed - plaintiff contends there exists an implied grant of easement under the doctrine of necessity - prescriptive rights - court did not find plaintiff to be a credible witness - court contends that at all material times the plaintiff was aware of the first and second named defendants’ intention to develop the first site and was aware that that necessitated a right of way and right of conduit over the laneway - express right of way in the 1923 deed does not include a right of conduit - court refuses plaintiffs orders - third named defendant has licence to pass over laneway.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now