Harrington v Judge Murphy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 1989 |
| Date | 10 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | [1988 No. 288 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
High Court
Circuit Court - Jurisdiction - Real property - Action concerning title to land - Circuit Court enjoying concurrent jurisdiction with High Court - Exclusion of jurisdiction where rateable valuation of land exceeds £200 - Whether rateable valuation of land must be proven to court before jurisdiction exercised - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 (No. 39), s. 22, sub-s. 1, Third Schedule - Courts Act, 1980 (No. 11), s. 2, sub-s. 1 (d).
Section 22, sub-s. 1 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, provides as follows:—
"(a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, the Circuit Court shall, concurrently with the High Court, have all the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine any proceedings of the kind mentioned in column (2) of the Third Schedule to this Act at any reference number.
(b) Unless the necessary parties to the proceedings in a cause sign, either before or at any time during the hearing, the form of consent prescribed by rules of court, the Circuit Court shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection, have jurisdiction to hear and determine any cause of the kind mentioned in column (2) of the Third Schedule to this Act at a particular reference number in the case mentioned in column (3) of the said Schedule at that reference number.
(c) The Circuit Court shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection, have jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter of the kind mentioned in column (2) of the Third Schedule to this Act at a particular reference number in the case mentioned in column (3) of the said Schedule at that reference number."
Column (2) of the Third Schedule to the Act mentions, at reference number 8, an action in which the title to land comes into question, other than an action for ejectment; column (3) at that reference number, as amended by s. 2, sub-s. 1 (d) of the Courts Act, 1980, mentions cases where the rateable valuation of the land exceeds £200.
The applicants were defendants in a Circuit Court action heard by the respondent, in which a number of plaintiffs sought declarations claiming rights in common over the applicants' land. The applicants resisted the claim on the grounds, inter alia, that the rateable valuation of the land had not been proven to the court and that the respondent had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Laura Finnegan and Another
...jurisdiction, the absence of rateable valuation does deprive the court of jurisdiction. The case of Harrington & Keohane v. Murphy [1989] I.R. 207, a decision of O'Hanlon J., concerned an application for certiorari by the applicants against a Circuit Court judge on grounds that the plaintif......
-
Meagher v Woods
...This was established albeit obiter in the judicial review brought against a decision of Judge Murphy in Harrington v. Murphy [1989] I.R. 207, but O'Hanlon J. refused to make an order of certiorari, he being satisfied that the lands, the subject matter of the proceedings, had a rateable valu......
-
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Hanley & Giblin
...been exceeded, the Circuit Court enjoys jurisdiction. This is consistent with the views expressed by O'Hanlon J. in Harrington v. Murphy [1989] I.R. 207. The applicants in that case sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Circuit Court on the grounds that it lacked jurisd......
-
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Anne Keating
...the second contingency. 38 Moreover, the judgment in Finnegan expressly cited with approval the judgment in Harrington v. Judge Murphy [1989] I.R. 207. There, the question of proofs had been addressed as follows. “The applicants claim that formal proof of the rateable valuation of the lands......