Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Cody
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 96 |
| Date | 30 July 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2020:000038 |
AND
[2020] IESCDET 96
O'Donnell J.
Charleton J.
O'Malley J.
S:AP:IE:2020:000038
2019 No. 60 CA
SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Plaintiff to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 31 st January, 2020 and 28 th February, 2020 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 28 th February, 2020 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 9 th March, 2020 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 24 th March, 2020 AND WAS/WAS NOT IN TIME. |
The general principles applied by this court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
This application concerns a decision of the High Court of the 31 st of January, 2020 ( [2020] IEHC 34), on an appeal from the Circuit Court by which the High Court allowed the appeal of the second-named respondent, Heather Cody, against the judgment of the Circuit Court of the 12 th of February, 2019, granting the applicant bank possession of certain property pursuant to s. 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964, which was applicable to the proceedings pursuant to the transitional provisions of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013. As noted at para. 2 of the High Court judgment, no appeal was brought by Mr. Cody.
Section 62(7) provides that the registered owner of a charge may apply to the court in a summary manner for possession of the land or any part of the land where repayment of the principal monies secured by the instrument of charges become due. It appears that, in this case, it is not contested that the bank is the registered owner of a charge over the property or that repayments of the principal monies purporting to be secured by the instrument of charge had become due.
However, Mrs. Cody, who represented herself, alleged that the mortgage was ...
To continue reading
Request your trial