Permanent TSB Plc v Langan; Permanent TSB Plc v Langan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Baker |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 722 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2015/39CA Circuit Court Appeal Circuit Court Record No. 1782/2014 |
and
[2022] IEHC 722
Record No. 2015/39CA
Record No. 2015/40CA
Circuit Court Appeal
Circuit Court Record No. 1782/2014
THE HIGH COURT
Orders for possession – Properties – Jurisdiction – Appellant appealing against orders for possession made by the Circuit Court – Whether the respondents had established that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction
Facts: The appellant, Mr Langan, appealed to the High Court against orders for possession made by Linnane J in the Circuit Court on 23 February 2015 in respect of six properties, all in Dublin City or County, five of which were registered, and the sixth unregistered. On 4 February 2016, Baker J informed the parties that she proposed to state a case to the Court of Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s. 38 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, s. 74 of the Court of Appeal Act 2014, and O. 86B of the Rules of the Superior Courts concerning a number of questions: whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 when a property is not rated; how, if there is no certificate of rateable valuation, a Circuit Court may exercise its jurisdiction; and whether, by reason of the fact property is not rateable by virtue of the Valuation Act 2001, or otherwise, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is automatically excluded. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 28 July 2016 ([2016] IECA 229) and thereafter an appeal was had to the Supreme Court which gave its judgment on 12 December 2017 ([2017] IESC 71). The Supreme Court answered the case stated by saying first, that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is not excluded by reason of the fact that a property is not rateable under the provisions of the Valuation Act 2001. Second, the Court held that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction in all relevant cases provided the property in question does not actually have a rateable valuation which exceeds €253.95. In answer to the third, fourth and fifth questions raised, the Court held that a plaintiff must “establish jurisdiction”, either by producing a certificate of rateable valuation which demonstrates that the rateable valuation is below the Circuit Court limit, or by producing admissible evidence that the property concerned does not in fact have a rateable valuation. The matter then came back for hearing before Baker J, as the judge who had stated the case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The matter came to be heard on 27 July 2022 when Mr Langan made a submission concerning the means by which a plaintiff seeking possession must establish jurisdiction, and argued that on the date of the issue of a civil bill the jurisdictional requirements and proofs must be in existence, and that a plaintiff cannot rely on proofs that come into existence later.
Held by Baker J that because it is the function of pleadings to identify the nature of the claim and not the evidence on which a plaintiff will seek to establish that claim, and because the pleading has as its function the identification of those issues and not the evidence which will be relied upon to establish those facts, the law is not that a plaintiff must at the date of the issue of a civil bill for possession be in a position to establish jurisdiction by means of the production of a certificate of rateable valuation showing jurisdiction. Baker J held that the question to be decided was whether the respondents, Permanent TSB Plc and Start Mortgages DAC, had established by evidence, and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court, that the Circuit Court did have jurisdiction. In Baker J’s view they had done so.
Baker J held that the proofs were met and that the respondents were entitled to possession of the six premises set out in the indorsement to the two civil bills both dated 12 March 2014.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Baker delivered on the 20th day of December, 2022
. This judgment is given in the appeal of Mr Langan against orders for possession made by Linnane J. in the Circuit Court on 23 February 2015 in respect of six properties, all in Dublin City or County, five of which are registered, and the sixth unregistered. Proceedings were instituted in the Circuit Court by two separate civil bills, one in respect of the five registered properties, and the second for the sixth unregistered lands. All six properties are domestic dwellings which Mr Langan had let under various forms of letting agreements to tenants.
. At the time the proceedings were instituted none of the properties had a rateable valuation, but it was pleaded that they each had a rateable valuation below €253.95.
. The appeal of the Circuit Court orders for possession came on before me sitting as a High Court judge in the High Court on Circuit on 1 February 2016. On 4 February 2016 I informed the parties that I proposed to state a case to the Court of Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s. 38 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, s.74 of the Court of Appeal Act 2014, and O. 86B of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“RSC”) concerning a number of questions: whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 when a property is not rated; how, if there is no certificate of rateable valuation, a Circuit Court may exercise its jurisdiction; and whether, by reason of the fact property is not rateable by virtue of the Valuation Act 2001, or otherwise, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is automatically excluded.
. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 28 July 2016 ( [2016] IECA 229) and thereafter an appeal was had to the Supreme Court which gave its judgment on 12 December 2017 ( [2017] IESC 71).
. The Supreme Court answered the case stated by saying first, that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is not excluded by reason of the fact that a property is not rateable under the provisions of the Valuation Act 2001. Second, the Court held that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction in all relevant cases provided the property in question does not actually have a rateable valuation which exceeds €253.95. In answer to the third, fourth and fifth questions raised, the Court held that a plaintiff must “establish jurisdiction”, either by producing a certificate of rateable valuation which demonstrates that the rateable valuation is below the Circuit Court limit, or by producing admissible evidence that the property concerned does not in fact have a rateable valuation. The Court suggested that in certain circumstances an appropriate officer of the Commissioner for Valuations could give evidence that a specified property does not actually have a rateable valuation or a deemed rateable valuation.
. The first named plaintiff, the original mortgagee, had sold its interest in the loan and security to the second named plaintiff/respondent, and an order was made on 28 March 2022 by Coffey J. adding Smart Mortgages as co-plaintiff. For clarity, I will refer to these two parties collectively as “the respondents” in the course of this judgment.
. By notice of appeal filed on 26 April 2022, Mr Langan purported to file an appeal against the substitution order to the Court of Appeal, but by order of Costello J. made on 17 June 2022 that appeal was struck out on the grounds that the Court of Appeal did not enjoy a jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the High Court on Circuit.
. The matter then came back for hearing before me, as the judge who had stated the case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal.
. Following the delivery of its judgment by the Supreme Court the respondents obtained valuations in respect of the six properties the subject matter of the proceedings pursuant to s. 67 of the Valuation Act 2001 and the certificates of rateable valuation in respect of each property was exhibited in an affidavits of Niamh O'Malley sworn on the 20 June 2022 which shows that the properties had a rateable valuation of €22.86, €16.92, €26.28, €22.50, €19.84 and €12.78 respectively. The rateable valuation of the five properties combined in one civil bill therefore is within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and each separately has a valuation below the jurisdictional limit.
. When the matter came on for hearing before me Mr Langan sought an adjournment and the matter finally came to be heard on 27 July 2022 when Mr Langan made a submission concerning the means by which a plaintiff seeking possession must establish jurisdiction, and argued that on the date of the issue of a civil bill the jurisdictional requirements and proofs must be in existence, and that a plaintiff cannot rely on proofs that come into existence later.
. For the purpose of clarifying the precise argument of Mr Langan, I proposed that written submissions be furnished by the parties to address a question formulated as follows:
“What is the purpose of an endorsement on a civil bill to establish jurisdiction?
Is it the case that it must be the fact that the rateable valuation is within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court at the date of the issuance of the civil bill?
Or, is the endorsement regarding jurisdiction an assertion of fact that falls to be proved on evidence at trial?”
. There is uncontroverted evidence that Mr Langan was, as of 31 May 2022 indebted to the respondents in the total sum of €1,933,856.71, and that the last payment made on his account was of €4,027.60 on 8 January 2018.
. Start Mortgages is registered as owner of the charges in the folio, as of 15 March 2019. In the light of the conclusiveness of the register, Start Mortgages has a right to seek...
To continue reading
Request your trial