Atlantis Developments Ltd (In Receivership) v Considine & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 608 (10 November 2023)

Atlantis Developments Ltd (In Receivership) v Considine & Anor (Approved) [2023] IEHC 608 (10 November 2023)

The Plaintiff failed to prove that the first Defendant's title to the Disputed Property had been extinguished by adverse possession at the date of contract. The evidence showed the first Defendant and his predecessors continued acts of ownership (grazing animals, grant applications, access) sufficient to defeat any claim of adverse possession by the second Defendant. There was no concluded contract for sale to the second Defendant, and the Plaintiff accepted the first Defendant's title at purchase. Therefore, there was no breach of covenant for title and the Plaintiff's claim fails.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 608
Parties
Plaintiff: Atlantis Developments Limited (In Receivership); First Defendant: Patrick Considine; Second Defendant: Liscannor Development Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings (damages for Breach of Contract/covenant in Land Sale) / High Court Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Implied Covenants for Title, Breach of Contract, Statute of Limitations, Registration of Title
Property Law Contract Law Land Law Adverse Possession Implied Covenants for Title Breach of Contract Statute of Limitations 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atlantis Developments Limited (In Receivership)

Plaintiff

Patrick Considine

First Defendant

Liscannor Development Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings (damages for Breach of Contract/covenant in Land Sale) / High Court Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first Defendant had good title to the Disputed Property at the date of contract or whether title had been extinguished by adverse possession by the second Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the first Defendant breached implied covenants for title under the Conveyancing Act 1881 by purporting to transfer land he did not own
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for breach of contract/covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove that the first Defendant's title to the Disputed Property had been extinguished by adverse possession at the date of contract. The evidence showed the first Defendant and his predecessors continued acts of ownership (grazing animals, grant applications, access) sufficient to defeat any claim of adverse possession by the second Defendant. There was no concluded contract for sale to the second Defendant, and the Plaintiff accepted the first Defendant's title at purchase. Therefore, there was no breach of covenant for title and the Plaintiff's claim fails.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed