Supreme Court: Circuit Court has jurisdiction to make possession orders

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Background

The defendant/respondent David Langan entered into mortgages in relation to 6 properties with the plaintiff/appellant Permanent TSB plc, and subsequently defaulted on the mortgage repayments.

As a consequence of Mr Langan’s default, Permanent TSB instituted possession proceedings in the Circuit Court, where it was ordered that Permanent TSB recover possession in respect of all of the relevant properties.

High Court

Mr Langan appealed those orders to the High Court, but before his appeal could be heard by the High Court, it was held in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. Finnegan IEHC 304 that the Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction in disputes concerning property without a rateable valuation.

Following the decision in Finnegan, in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. Hanley IEHC 738 held that the Circuit Court did have jurisdiction to hear proceedings relating to property without a rateable valuation.

Court of Appeal

Due to these conflicting judgments, when presented with Mr Langan’s appeal; five questions including the following were referred to the Court of Appeal:

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?

5. Is the plea in a Civil Bill taken together with evidence on affidavit of a provisional estimate of rateable valuation, sufficient “legal evidence” on which the court can make an estimate rateable valuation for the purposes of s. 31 of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act 1877?

In the Court of Appeal, the questions were answered as follows:

1. Yes, subject to the answer given in respect of Q.3.

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 rendered unrateable by the Valuation Act 2001, unless the case in question comes within either Part 10 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 or s. 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013.

4. Does not arise.

5. Does not arise.

Supreme Court

On the basis of general public importance Permanent TSB was granted leave to appeal in respect of “whether the Court of Appeal was incorrect in its answers to each of the questions posed in the case stated from the High Court and, if so, the consequences for this case”. The Attorney General was also granted leave to intervene.

Giving the Judgment of the Supreme Court, Clarke CJ answered the questions referred to in the Court of Appeal in the following terms:

(1) the relevant jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is not excluded by reason of the fact that a property is not rateable under the provisions of the 2001 Act. However, “for the avoidance of doubt”, Clarke CJ added that the situation remains the same where a relevant property does not have a rateable valuation.

(2) the Circuit Court has jurisdiction in all relevant cases provided that the property in question does not actually have a rateable valuation which exceeds €253.95.

Referring to questions (3) to (5) Clarke CJ proposed “that these be answered by indicating that it is necessary for a plaintiff in a possession action of the type which is the subject of this appeal to establish jurisdiction… Given the possibility that a property may have a rateable valuation even though it is not rateable in the sense in which that term is used in the 2001 Act, it is insufficient, for the purposes of demonstrating that a property does not have a rateable valuation, to establish that the property is not rateable. Rather, admissible evidence of the fact that the property does not actually have a rateable valuation must be produced. There is no reason in principle why an appropriate officer of the Commissioner could not give evidence… to the effect that, having checked the records of the Commissioner, a specified property does not actually have either a rateable valuation or a deemed rateable valuation”.

Allowing the appeal, Clarke CJ held that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entertain possession proceedings in cases where a relevant property either has a rateable valuation which is shown not to exceed €253.95 or where property is shown not to actually have a rateable valuation at all.

Further, a plaintiff must establish jurisdiction either by demonstrating that the relevant property has a rateable valuation which does not exceed €253.95 or by showing that the property in question does not actually have a rateable valuation at all. These matters may be demonstrated by any admissible evidence.