# Court rules No jurisdiction to make possession orders.



## phil (28 Jul 2016)

This is an interesting ruling. It will open a tin of worms for the banks and courts




http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...isdiction-to-make-possession-orders-1.2737328


----------



## Jim Stafford (28 Jul 2016)

I set out below an article by Mary Carolan in today's Irish Times which summarises a Court of Appeal judgment that was made today.

Justice Gerard Hogan, giving the judgment, said it will have “unfortunate and unintended” consequences. This includes that possession proceedings which do not fall within exceptions created by Acts of 2009 and 2013 will have to be brought in the High Court rather than the Circuit Court. This will simply create additional costs for litigants and deprive the parties of access to local courts, he said.

The judgment will have “even more serious consequences” as the general jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to deal with property disputes “is, at least, now open to question”. The court was nonetheless obliged faithfully to administer the law.

He noted the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, which came into effect on December 1st, 2009, conferred a new jurisdiction on the Circuit Court in mortgage cases which was not dependent on rateable valuation but that jurisdiction applies to mortgages for housing loans created after that date.

While the Land and Conveyancing Act 2013 extended the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction to mortgages for principal private residences created before December 1st, 2009, the relevant provision is effective only from July 31st, 2013, he said.

The court’s judgment concerned legal issues arising in proceedings by Permanent TSB against David Langan.

In Februay 2015, PTSB secured orders from the Circuit Court for possession of six domestic dwellings, after Mr Langan defaulted on repayments under a mortgage taken out in February 2008. Five of the properties are in north Co Dublin and the sixth is at Smithfield, Dublin.

Mr Langan appealed to the High Court where Ms Justice Marie Baker referred legal issues to the Court of Appeal for determination. Two High Court judges previously gave conflicting decisions concerning whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to make possession orders.

The core legal issue before the Court of Appeal centred on whether, if a property is not rateable under the Valuation Act 2001, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to hear proceedings brought by a mortgage lender for possession orders.

Mr Langan argued the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction as all six properties in his case were constructed after 2002 and, under the Valuation Act 2001, were not rateable.

The Court of Appeal said the 2001 Act specially provides that domestic dwellings, with some minor exceptions not relevant to this case, shall not be rateable. Apartments and mixed use premises are rateable in some limited circumstances, it noted.

In this case, all six properties are domestic dwellings, Mr Justice Hogan said.

When, under the 2001 Act or otherwise, a property is not rateable, the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction to make possession orders under the Courts Supplemental Provisions Act 1961 is excluded and the Circuit Court also has no jurisdiction if the property does not have a rateable valuation over €253.95.

*My Comment*
The judge stated that the judgment will have "_unfortunate and unintended consequences". _It will certainly mean that any circuit court cases captured by the judgment will have to be abandoned, which may have adverse cost consequences for the plaintiffs.  It will also mean that many cases will have to start from scratch again in the High Court, which could take years.  The judgment will certainly give an opportunity to some families to now negotiate deals with their lenders.

Jim Stafford


----------



## las66 (28 Jul 2016)

Jim Stafford said:


> I set out below an article by Mary Carolan in today's Irish Times which summarises a Court of Appeal judgment that was made today.
> 
> Justice Gerard Hogan, giving the judgment, said it will have “unfortunate and unintended” consequences. This includes that possession proceedings which do not fall within exceptions created by Acts of 2009 and 2013 will have to be brought in the High Court rather than the Circuit Court. This will simply create additional costs for litigants and deprive the parties of access to local courts, he said.
> 
> ...


I wonder how this will affect possession orders granted in the circuit courts whereby jurisdiction was claimed on rateable value only yet proceedings were started after the lca 2013?


----------



## Sarenco (28 Jul 2016)

As far as I can tell from the media reports, the ruling won't have any impact on:-

any proceedings commenced after 31 July 2013; or
any cases relating to mortgages created after 1 December 2009; or
any cases relating to domestic dwellings constructed prior to 2002 (with some exceptions).
I think that's right!


----------



## las66 (28 Jul 2016)

Sarenco said:


> As far as I can tell from the media reports, the ruling won't have any impact on:-
> 
> any proceedings commenced after 31 July 2013; or
> any cases relating to mortgages created after 1 December 2009; or
> any cases relating to domestic dwellings constructed prior to 2002 (with some exceptions).


Thanks. Just strange that the lca 2013 wasnt used in many cases to claim jurisdiction but instead they used rateable value.


----------



## Sarenco (28 Jul 2016)

las66 said:


> Thanks. Just strange that the lca 2013 wasnt used in many cases to claim jurisdiction but instead they used rateable value.



Agreed but I don't think anything really turns on it.


----------



## Delboy (28 Jul 2016)

Another fine mess. Mortgage contracts are now right up there with Drink Driving laws


----------



## phil (29 Jul 2016)

I saw a report somewhere today that this will affect over 11000 cases of repossession.


----------



## phil (29 Jul 2016)

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/seizure-of-11000-homes-hit-by-ruling-34921527.html


----------



## Sarenco (2 Aug 2016)

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...bb29ac860e1efd8080257ffe004b05d0?OpenDocument

The Court of Appeal's answers to the five questions stated by the High Court:-

(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? *Yes, subject to the answer given in respect of Q.3.*

(2) In the alternative does the Circuit Court have jurisdiction by virtue of the property not having a rateable valuation that exceeds €253.95? *No.*

(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?  *Where the defendant has put the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court at issue, that Court in 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 2009 Act or s. 3 of the 2013 Act.*

(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? *Does not arise.*

(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 a estimate rateable valuation for the purposes of s. 31 of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act 1877? *Does not arise.*


----------

