Rhatigan v. Gill [1999] IEHC 105; [1999] 2 ILRM 427 (16th February, 1999)

Rhatigan v. Gill [1999] IEHC 105; [1999] 2 ILRM 427 (16th February, 1999)

The Defendant failed to prove entitlement to possession of the 12 foot strip. The Plaintiffs are in occupation with the authority and consent of the probable true owners (Elwoods/Currans), and the prior litigation (Elwood v Gill) did not determine the issue of entitlement to the strip. Jus tertii does not bar the Plaintiffs' defence as they act on the authority of the true owners.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 105
Parties
Plaintiffs: Padraic Rhatigan and Others; Defendant/counterclaimant: Ronan Gill
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial on Single Remaining Issue
Outcome
Defendant's counterclaim for possession of the 12 foot strip refused.
Legal Topics
Possession of Land, Boundary Disputes, Issue Estoppel, Jus Tertii, Registration of Title
Property Law Land Law Possession of Land Boundary Disputes Issue Estoppel Jus Tertii Registration of Title

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Padraic Rhatigan and Others

Plaintiffs

Ronan Gill

Defendant/counterclaimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial on Single Remaining Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which party is entitled to possession of a 12 foot strip of land adjoining the eastern boundary of Site 3?
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs can rely on the authority of the owners of Site 2 to justify their possession of the strip against the Defendant's claim
  3. 3 Whether issue estoppel arising from the Elwood v Gill litigation precludes the Plaintiffs from claiming possession of the strip

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to prove entitlement to possession of the 12 foot strip. The Plaintiffs are in occupation with the authority and consent of the probable true owners (Elwoods/Currans), and the prior litigation (Elwood v Gill) did not determine the issue of entitlement to the strip. Jus tertii does not bar the Plaintiffs' defence as they act on the authority of the true owners.

Court Disposition

Defendant's counterclaim for possession of the 12 foot strip refused.