Man claims adverse possession of lands 'owned by GAA' in Cork
The GAA and persons alleged to be the trustees of Cork GAA's County Board are being sued in the High Court. Picture: Brendan Moran/Sportsfile
The GAA and persons alleged to be the trustees of Cork GAA's County Board are being sued in the High Court by a man who claims he is entitled to adverse possession of lands owned by the association on the outskirts of the city.
The action has been brought by James McCarthy Snr, who claims that he is entitled to adverse possession of the property known as "the Pen", near Delaney Rovers GAA club's facilities on the outskirts of Cork city, which contained a now-disused factory that formerly made hurls.
Mr McCarthy claims that he has used and occupied the lands in question for many years.
He has brought proceedings against parties he claims are the registered owners of the land, including Iontaobhas Corparaideach Cumman Luthcleas Gael Cuideachta Faoi Theorainn Ráthaíochta, with a registered address at Croke Park, Dublin 3.
The action is also against six named defendants, who it is claimed are the trustees of the Cork County Board.
The six are Brian de Baroid of Summertown Drive, Glaisín, Cork; Patrick Pearse Murphy of Castle Ave, Ballincollig, Cork; Liam Ó Maolmhichill of Baltrasna, Ashbourne, Co Meath; Siomon Ó Maolruna, c/o Áras Mumha an Réa Bóg, Luimneach; Proinnsias Ó Murhchú, c/o Páirc Uí Chaoimh, The Marina, Ballintemple, Cork; and Donal Ó Niallain, Newtown, Nenagh, Co Tipperary.
In his action, Mr McCarthy, of Glenfields Ave, Ballyvolane, Cork, seeks various orders and declarations from the court regarding the property.
These include an order restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the lands. He also seeks a declaration that he has barred the title of the defendants to the lands by way of adverse possession.
If necessary, he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to a right of way over certain parts of the site.
He further seeks an order for damages against the defendants.
The proceedings were commenced last year.
A preliminary matter in the action was mentioned before Ms Justice Siobhan Stack during Thursday's vacation sitting of the High Court.
Following an ex-parte application by Mr McCarthy's legal team, the judge agreed to formally renew the summons issued against the defendants for several additional months.
The existing summons was due to expire in the coming days, the court heard.
The judge was also asked to make orders regarding the service of the proceedings on some of the named defendants.
Counsel Siobhan Clabby, instructed by Mr Cathal Malone of Thomas Coughlin & Co Solicitors, said that there had been difficulties serving three of the alleged trustees, namely Mr Ó Maolmhichill, Mr Ó Maolrunai and Mr Ó Murhchu.
Counsel said that it had been difficult to obtain precise addresses for those defendants, as they were very general and vague.
The addresses in question are listed on documentation relating to the lands at the centre of Mr McCarthy's claim, held by the Land Registry.
Counsel said that after launching the proceedings her client's solicitors had attempted to ascertain if a firm of solicitors acted for the county board, and if they would accept service of documents making the defendants formally aware of the claim against them.
However, it was impossible to get confirmation from those solicitors if they would accept service on the defendant's behalf.
Personal service of documents on the defendants was then attempted, counsel said.
Four of the defendants have been served with the proceedings, but despite engaging the services of a professional summons server, her client had not been able to serve three of the defendants.
In an affidavit to the court the summons server Ger Gunn said he was unable to get an exact address for Mr Ó Maolmhichill, who is the president of Ashbourne GAA Club.
Despite making inquiries with that club, Mr Gunn said no one was willing to provide him with Mr Ó Maolmhichill's phone number.
Mr Gunn said he passed on his own number via third parties to Mr Ó Maolmhichill and was told by an employee of Ashbourne GAA club that the summons would be passed on to that defendant. However, Mr Ó Maolmhichill did not correspond with him.
Mr Gunn said he attempted to serve Mr Ó Maolruna at the Limerick address, which he said was an office for the GAA, listed on the land registry.
He was told that Mr Ó Maolruna was no longer involved with the GAA and was not given his address nor phone number.
Mr Gunn said that when he attempted to serve Mr Ó Murhchu at Cork GAA's headquarters at Páirc Uí Chaoimh he was informed by an administrator working there that the defendant was not present and is on "extended leave".
Mr Gunn said he was unable to obtain a precise address nor a phone number for Mr Ó Murhchu.
In light of these difficulties, counsel said that they seeking orders for substitute service by way of advertisements in three local newspapers that circulate in and around the areas of the three alleged trustees' given addresses.
Alternatively, the court was asked to find that those three defendants had been formally served with the proceedings.
In her ruling, the judge said she was not satisfied at this stage to make orders in relation to the newspaper advertisements, nor deem the service of the documents 'good'.
The court said that service on the three alleged trustees should be first attempted by either registered post, or by general ordinary post.
The judge said that the material should also be served on the secretary of the Cork County GAA Board, as presumably that person would know where to find them and be able to provide the three alleged trustees with the summons.
If there were further difficulties with service, the judge said that the plaintiff's lawyers could return to the court.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
