Permanent TSB Plc v. Langan and Anor | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court of Ireland |
Full case name | Permanent TSB Plc and David Langan and The Attorney General |
Decided | 12th December, 2017 |
Citation(s) | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da02c2f4653d058440f9981 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Court of Appeal |
Appealed to | Supreme Court |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | O' Donnell Donal J, McKechnie J, MacMenamin J, O'Malley Iseult |
Case opinions | |
Mr. Langan took out a mortgage with Permanent TSB and defaulted on the payments. He appealed to the High Court, but the High Court's ruling was against the rules of the Circuit Court. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal, and the High Court asked for clarifications. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the current matter as the subject property was a domestic dwelling that was rateable. The High Court proposed that the Circuit Court cannot proceed to judgment in relation to a domestic home that has been deemed unrateable by the Valuation Act 2001 when the defendant has contested the Circuit Court's jurisdiction. The Attorney General intervened in the Supreme Court appeal filed by Permanent TSB Plc, and the other Justices agreed with Clarke CJ's decision. The Circuit Court retained jurisdiction over the case if a property is not valued in accordance with the 2001 Act, and the plaintiff must demonstrate jurisdiction by providing a certificate of rateable valuation or solid proof that the property does not have a rateable valuation. | |
Decision by | Clarke CJ |
Keywords | |
Practice Procedure, Post Hearing, Courts, Constitutional Law |
Permanent TSB Plc v Langan and Anor, [2017] IESC 71; [1] [2018] 1 I.R. 375, [2] is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. The Court allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal. It was found that the Circuit Court had the authority to conduct possession proceedings in this case. [3] [4] [5]
Mr. Langan took out a mortgage with Permanent TSB. The term "defaulting" refers to Mr. Langan's failure to make mortgage payments. The recovery of possession of the six homes he had pledged as security for the mortgage was the subject of the Circuit Court hearing. Permanent TSB Plc is required to be the owner of the properties, according to the Circuit Court. [6]
In an appeal to the High Court, Mr. Langan claimed that the Circuit Court lacked the authority to issue the types of orders that were upheld in the Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. Finnegan case. [7] In a ruling claiming jurisdiction, the High Court's conclusion was against the rules of the Circuit Court. Following the inconsistent High Court ruling, the case was referred to the Court of Appeal. The High Court asked for the following clarifications:
According to Hogan J.'s ruling, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the current matter as the subject property was a domestic dwelling that was rateable. [9] [10] [11]
The questions posed by Baker J (High Court) it was proposed they may be answered as follows:
The Attorney General intervened in the Supreme Court appeal filed by Permanent TSB Plc on the basis that the issues raised were important to the general public. The other Justices agreed with Clarke CJ's decision, [12] which would allow the appeal. The Court was persuaded to accept the following new responses instead of those offered by the Court of Appeal:
The Circuit Court was granted jurisdiction to hear possession disputes in cases where the relevant property's rateable value was established to be either €253.95 or less or to have no rateable value at all. [13] [14] [15]
In Condron v. Galway Holding Company Ltd, [16] it was determined that the matter should have been filed in the Circuit Court because of the complexity of the claim. In accordance with the Circuit Court scale and with a certificate for senior counsel, the plaintiff's request for expenses was granted.
Permanent TSB Plc v. Langan and anor