Walsh -v- Walsh & ors [2018] IEHC 401 (05 July 2018)

Walsh -v- Walsh & ors [2018] IEHC 401 (05 July 2018)

The court found that the defendants did not acquire any rights of way or easements over Victoria Lane under common law, necessity, estoppel, or prescription. The plaintiff is entitled to restrain the defendants from using Victoria Lane and its services. The third named defendant's counterclaim for registration of rights as a burden fails as no valid easement or right of way was established. The plaintiff's claim for compensation is contingent and not enforceable against the third named defendant. No prescriptive rights exist under the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 as the relevant user period and requirements were not satisfied.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 401
Parties
Plaintiff: Irene Walsh; First Named Defendant: Gerard Walsh; Second Named Defendant: John Archibold; Third Named Defendant: Promontoria (Aran) Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim granted; third named defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Rights of Way, Constructive Trusts, Estoppel, Prescription, Mortgages, Injunctions
Property Law Equity Contract Law Easements Rights of Way Constructive Trusts Estoppel Prescription +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Walsh

Plaintiff

Gerard Walsh

First Named Defendant

John Archibold

Second Named Defendant

Promontoria (Aran) Limited

Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have acquired rights of way or easements over Victoria Lane
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restrain the defendants from using Victoria Lane and its services
  3. 3 Whether the third named defendant is entitled to registration of rights as a burden

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants did not acquire any rights of way or easements over Victoria Lane under common law, necessity, estoppel, or prescription. The plaintiff is entitled to restrain the defendants from using Victoria Lane and its services. The third named defendant's counterclaim for registration of rights as a burden fails as no valid easement or right of way was established. The plaintiff's claim for compensation is contingent and not enforceable against the third named defendant. No prescriptive rights exist under the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 as the relevant user period and requirements were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim granted; third named defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that defendants have not acquired and do not enjoy any right of easement for electricity, gas, water or services under Victoria Lane
  • Declaration that defendants have not acquired and do not enjoy any rights of way over Victoria Lane