Judgment later in possession orders case
The Supreme Court will give judgment later on an appeal with implications for financial institutions to seek repossession orders where there is default on certain domestic property mortgages.
Permanent TSB has appealed a Court of Appeal decision of July 2016 which found the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to make possession orders for six Dublin properties mortgaged through PTSB by businessman David Langan.
The central issue was that Mr Langan’s properties were built after 2001 when a new law dealing with the rateable valuation of property was passed. The 2001 Valuation Act provided that domestic dwellings, subject to certain exceptions, were not rateable. For a lender to seek a repossession order in the Circuit Court it had been the situation a property had to have a rateable valuation not exceeding €253.95. Mr Langan argued, in legal proceedings brought against him by PTSB, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to order repossession because his properties were not rateable.
New laws were passed in 2009 and 2013 which resolved the Circuit Court jurisdiction issue. However, the Court of Appeal 2016 ruling meant properties built after 2001, and not falling within the exceptions created by the 2009 and 2013 laws, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Brian Murray SC, for PTSB, said if the properties concerned were not rateable, and accordingly not rated, it followed their rateable valuation did not exceed €253, and so the Circuit Court had jurisdiction.
Opposing the appeal, Louis McEntagart SC, for Mr Langan, said the Supreme Court should accept, as the Court of Appeal had, what was conferred on the Circuit Court under the laws governing its jurisdiction.