Persian Properties Ltd. v. Registrar of Titles [2003] IESC 12 (20 February 2003)

Persian Properties Ltd. v. Registrar of Titles [2003] IESC 12 (20 February 2003)

The developers were entitled to compensation for the loss of the disputed strip of land due to a Land Registry mapping error, as their conduct did not amount to contributory neglect under S.120(2) of the 1964 Act. However, they were not entitled to recover the costs of defending the High Court litigation, as the defendants were not given an opportunity to consent or object to such litigation, and it was unjust and unreasonable to require the defendants to bear those costs in the circumstances.

Citation
[2003] IESC 12
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Persian Properties Limited; Defendant/respondent: Registrar of Titles; Defendant/respondent: Minister for Finance
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order varied.
Legal Topics
Compensation for Registration Errors, Rectification of Land Registry, Conclusive Evidence of Title, Boundary Disputes
Property Law Land Registration Compensation for Registration Errors Rectification of Land Registry Conclusive Evidence of Title Boundary Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Persian Properties Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

Registrar of Titles

Defendant/respondent

Minister for Finance

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the developers were entitled to compensation under S.120(2) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 for loss caused by a Land Registry mapping error
  2. 2 Whether the developers' conduct precluded compensation due to contributory neglect
  3. 3 Whether compensation should include litigation costs incurred in defending title

Ratio Decidendi

The developers were entitled to compensation for the loss of the disputed strip of land due to a Land Registry mapping error, as their conduct did not amount to contributory neglect under S.120(2) of the 1964 Act. However, they were not entitled to recover the costs of defending the High Court litigation, as the defendants were not given an opportunity to consent or object to such litigation, and it was unjust and unreasonable to require the defendants to bear those costs in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court order varied.

Orders

  • Developers awarded £10,000 as compensation for the value of the disputed strip of land.
  • No compensation awarded for litigation costs incurred in defending title.