Permanent TSB v Langan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke J.,MacMenamin J.,Laffoy J.
• Judgment Date: 17 November 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IESCDET 139
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 17 November 2016

[2016] IESCDET 139

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke J.

MacMenamin J.

Laffoy J.

BETWEEN

PERMANENT TSB PLC

PLAINTIFF

AND

DAVID LANGAN

DEFENDANT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES.

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Plaintiff to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

1. Jurisdiction

1.1 This determination relates to an application by Permanent TSB Plc., which was the plaintiff in the underlying proceedings which commenced in the Circuit Court and is hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’. The Bank seeks leave to appeal under Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Ryan P., Irvine J. and Hogan J.) delivered on 28th July, 2016 by Hogan J. and the order of the Court of Appeal dated 28th July, 2016, which was perfected on 1st September, 2016.

1.2 As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and from the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty Third Amendment of the Constitution, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established to the satisfaction of this Court that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that in the interests of justice it is necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.

1.3 The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

2. The proceedings

2.1 By orders of the Circuit Court, Dublin Circuit, County of the City of Dublin made by Her Honour Judge Linnane on 23rd February, 2015 in –

(a) title jurisdiction civil bill proceedings for possession (Record No. 2014/01781), and

(b) title jurisdiction civil bill proceedings for possession (Record No. 2014/01782),

it was ordered that the Bank recover against the defendant in both proceedings, David Langan, hereinafter called ‘Mr. Langan’, six properties in the County and City of Dublin, one of the said properties being the subject of the order for possession in proceedings Record No. 2014/01781 and the other five properties being the subject of the order for possession made in proceedings Record No. 2014/01782.

2.2 Mr. Langan appealed from the said orders to the High Court under Record Nos. 2015/40CA and 2015/39CA. On the hearing of the appeals, the High Court judge (Baker J.) stated 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 Order 86B of the Rules of the Superior Courts on the application of Mr. Langan. The questions raised on the case stated were:

1. If a property is not rateable by virtue of the Valuation Act 2001 or otherwise, is the Circuit Court's jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 excluded?

2. In the alternative, does the Circuit Court have jurisdiction by virtue of the property not having a rateable valuation that exceeds €253.95?

3. Is the Circuit Court entitled to proceed to judgment, unless it [is] shown by evidence that there is a rateable valuation which exceeds 253.95?

4. If there is no certificate of rateable valuation how does the Court exercise its power to estimate rateable valuation under s. 31 of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act 1877 (the Act of 1877)?

5. Is the plea in a Civil Bill taken together with evidence on affidavit of a professional assessment of rateable valuation, ‘sufficient legal evidence’ on which the Court can make an estimate of rateable valuation for the purposes of s. 31 of the Act of 1877?

2.3 The case stated having been heard by the Court of Appeal, judgment was delivered on 28th July, 2016 by Hogan J. The questions raised in the case stated were answered as follows:

1. Yes, subject to the answer given in respect of Q3.

2. No.

3. Where the defendant has put the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court at issue, that Court is not entitled to proceed to judgment in respect of a domestic dwelling which has been...