Cinn�ide & Ors v An t�rd-Aighne & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The judgment concerns an application by the first and second-named defendants ("the State defendants") to strike out the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the Court's inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or is bound to fail or is frivolous and vexatious. The proceedings arise from the sale by a receiver appointed by a company ("Company A") of lands owned by the first and second-named plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs"). The lands were sold to the third-named defendant ("Purchaser"). The fourth-named defendant is a solicitor acting for the purchaser, and the sixth-named defendant was the auctioneer acting for the receiver. The Property Registration Authority ("Tailte Éireann") registered the purchaser's ownership of the lands on 30 January 2019. The plaintiffs claim that the sale was unlawful, void, and without effect, constituting an attack on their property rights, and seek relief against the defendants involved in the sale and registration.

The claims against Tailte Éireann include allegations of acting ultra vires, breach of duty, breach of constitutional obligations, and misapplication of statutory law by registering a transfer of title based on an unlawful sale. The plaintiffs also pleaded that the registration was fraudulent and a "statutory fraud" under the Registration of Title Act 1964. The claim against the Attorney General is twofold: supervisory responsibility over Tailte Éireann and alleged failure to protect the plaintiffs' rights by not having adequate legal provisions in place.

At the hearing, the plaintiffs clarified that the relief sought against Tailte Éireann is limited to an order directing rectification of the register, and they do not maintain claims of fraud against the State defendants. The relief sought against the Attorney General remains unclear but appears focused on undoing the alleged wrongs done to the plaintiffs through supervisory failure and inadequate safeguards.

The court considered whether it could strike out part of the claim against the Attorney General and examined the merits of the claims against the State defendants in detail.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the State defendants, specifically Tailte Éireann and the Attorney General.
2. Whether the claims against Tailte Éireann and the Attorney General are bound to fail, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process warranting striking out under Order 19 Rule 28 or the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
3. Whether the Court can strike out part only of the claim against a defendant, in particular the Attorney General.
4. The scope and effect of statutory immunities conferred on Tailte Éireann under section 118 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.
5. The legal responsibility and liability of the Attorney General for supervising Tailte Éireann and for alleged failure to protect constitutional rights.
6. The appropriateness of placing a stay on parts of the claim pending determination of related claims against other defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (Plaintiffs') Arguments

• The sale of the lands was unlawful and void, and the registration of the purchaser's title by Tailte Éireann was invalid.
• They seek rectification of the register to restore their ownership.
• They allege that Tailte Éireann acted ultra vires, breached constitutional obligations, and engaged in statutory fraud, though at hearing they clarified no fraud claim was maintained against the State defendants.
• The Attorney General is liable for supervising Tailte Éireann and for failing to have adequate legal protections in place.
• The relief sought against Tailte Éireann is limited to rectification of the register based on case law requiring plenary proceedings for such relief.

Respondents' (State Defendants') Arguments

• The Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and is bound to fail.
• Tailte Éireann enjoys statutory immunity under section 118 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 for bona fide acts done in the exercise of its powers.
• There is no basis for alleging that Tailte Éireann acted other than bona fide or outside its statutory functions.
• The Attorney General is not responsible for supervising Tailte Éireann, which is independent in its functions under the relevant legislation.
• The claim against the Attorney General for supervisory liability is legally unsustainable and bound to fail.
• Any claim against the Attorney General for failure to protect rights is difficult but cannot be struck out at this stage.
• Tailte Éireann has no interest in ownership identity beyond maintaining the register and will rectify it if required after determination of other claims.
• It is appropriate to strike out the claims against Tailte Éireann and the supervisory claim against the Attorney General and to stay the remaining claim against the Attorney General pending outcome of other proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306	Principles governing applications to dismiss claims under Order 19 Rule 28 and inherent jurisdiction	Referenced as foundational authority on the high threshold for striking out claims
Salthill Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2009] IEHC 207	Principles on dismissal of claims	Referenced for procedural principles
Lopes v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 21	Application of dismissal principles	Referenced for established principles
Keohane v Hynes [2014] IESC 66	Dismissal of claims under inherent jurisdiction	Referenced for procedural standards
Clarington Developments Ltd v HCC International Insurance Company plc [2019] IEHC 630	Dismissal principles	Referenced as part of established jurisprudence
Kearney v Bank of Scotland [2020] IECA 92	Dismissal of claims	Referenced for principles on striking out claims
Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd & anor v Ireland & anor [2022] IECA 23	Frivolous and vexatious claims; ability to strike out parts of claims	Applied to justify striking out claims against Tailte Éireann and supervisory claim against Attorney General
McAndrew v Launceston Property Finance DAC & anor [2023] IECA 43	Recent restatement of dismissal principles	Referenced for current legal standards
O'Connor v Legal Aid Board [2022] IECA 216	Liability of State defendants for acts of independent bodies	Considered but distinguished; no supervisory liability found for Attorney General
Aer Rianta v Ryanair [2004] IESC 23	Whether partial striking out of claims is permissible	Discussed as prior authority against partial striking out; new rules now permit it
Ballymore Residential Ltd & anor v Roadstone Ltd & Ors [2021] IECA 167	Policy considerations on striking out parts of claims	Applied to assess appropriateness of striking out part of claim against Attorney General
Christian v Symantec Ltd [2022] IEHC 397	Inherent jurisdiction to strike out part of claims	Applied to support selective striking out and stay of parts of claim
Ryanair DAC v SC VOLA.RO SRL [2022] IEHC 741	Partial striking out of claims	Referenced in discussion of partial striking out under inherent jurisdiction
Ennis v Butterly [1996] IEHC 51; [1996] 1 IR 426	Partial striking out of claims	Referenced as an example where partial striking out was appropriate
Christian v Dublin City Council [2012] 2 IR 506	Constitutionality of statutory provisions	Referenced but not addressed in detail as no grounds were advanced
Burke v Beatty [2016] IEHC 353	Exercise of inherent jurisdiction to strike out part of claim	Referenced as precedent assuming partial striking out is possible

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by summarizing the well-established principles governing applications to dismiss claims under Order 19 Rule 28 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction, emphasizing the high threshold for depriving a party of a trial. The court took the plaintiffs' claims at their highest and considered whether the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action or were bound to fail.

The court found that the Statement of Claim and its amendment failed to properly plead facts grounding the claims against the defendants. The core dispute concerned the sale of lands by a receiver and subsequent registration of title by Tailte Éireann, which the plaintiffs alleged was unlawful.

Regarding Tailte Éireann, the court noted the statutory immunity under section 118 of the Registration of Title Act 1964, which protects the Authority from liability for bona fide acts or omissions in exercising its powers. Since the plaintiffs disavowed any fraud claim against Tailte Éireann, there was no allegation that its acts were not bona fide. Thus, the claim against Tailte Éireann was bound to fail.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that section 118 was inconsistent with Tailte Éireann's capacity to sue and be sued or unconstitutional, as no grounds were advanced.

The court also found the pleaded claims against Tailte Éireann to be fundamentally flawed, such as the erroneous claim that registration conveys title or that Tailte Éireann "assisted" other defendants beyond performing its statutory functions.

Turning to the Attorney General, the court distinguished two claims: (1) supervisory liability for Tailte Éireann's acts and omissions, and (2) failure to put in place adequate safeguards to protect constitutional rights. The court held that statutory provisions establish Tailte Éireann's independence, precluding supervisory liability for the Attorney General. The first claim was therefore bound to fail.

The second claim, which is contingent on the plaintiffs succeeding against other defendants and on Tailte Éireann not rectifying the register, was not dismissed as it disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court addressed whether it could strike out part only of the claim against the Attorney General. It reviewed prior authorities and recent changes to Order 19 Rule 28, concluding that partial striking out is permissible but should be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases involving separate and distinct claims.

Given the distinct nature of the two claims against the Attorney General, the court found it appropriate to strike out the supervisory claim while staying the second claim pending resolution of related proceedings.

The court also rejected arguments that the State defendants' motion was procedurally defective due to non-service of the original Statement of Claim, finding no substance in those points and no basis to adjourn the hearing.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was as follows:

• The plaintiffs' claim against Tailte Éireann is struck out.
• The plaintiffs' first claim against the Attorney General, alleging supervisory liability for Tailte Éireann, is struck out.
• The plaintiffs' second claim against the Attorney General, alleging failure to provide adequate protections to prevent wrongful registration, is stayed pending determination of the claims against the other defendants.

The striking out of claims against Tailte Éireann and part of the claim against the Attorney General was based on statutory immunity and the independence of Tailte Éireann, as well as the absence of a reasonable cause of action. The stay of the remaining claim recognizes that it depends on the outcome of related proceedings and the potential need for register rectification.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision applies existing principles and recent statutory amendments concerning partial striking out. The plaintiffs retain the right to initiate further proceedings if the register is not rectified following the resolution of the claims against the other defendants.