Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Hanley & anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arises from an appeal by the first named defendant ("Appellant") against a Circuit Court order granting possession to the plaintiff ("Plaintiff") of certain lands and premises in The City. The property, a dwelling house subject to a mortgage in favour of the Plaintiff, was rented to tenants and was not the family home of the defendants. The Circuit Court order was made on 18th December 2014 and the appeal was heard on affidavit in the High Court in The City.

The Plaintiff's Civil Bill for Possession included an averment regarding the property's rateable valuation not exceeding €253.95. The Circuit Court hearing relied on affidavits from bank officials, but did not initially include a certificate of rateable valuation. Subsequently, for the appeal, a solicitor for the Plaintiff exhibited a letter from the local authority confirming the property was not separately rateable but if it were, the valuation would not exceed €253.95. Further, a certificate from the Valuations Office was obtained, determining the rateable value as €15.75.

The Appellant challenged the validity of the proceedings on the basis that the Plaintiff had not properly established the property's rateable valuation in the Circuit Court and also objected to the sufficiency of the s. 67 certificate issued by the Valuations Office.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to grant possession given the absence of formal proof of the property's rateable valuation at the time of the original hearing.
2. Whether the s. 67 certificate issued by the Valuations Office constitutes sufficient evidence of rateable valuation for jurisdictional purposes.
3. The proper approach to proof of rateable valuation in possession proceedings under the relevant statutory framework.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Circuit Court proceedings were invalid due to the Plaintiff's failure to properly establish the property's rateable valuation, thus lacking jurisdiction.
• The s. 67 certificate does not constitute sufficient evidence of rateable valuation.
• Objections to the affidavits on procedural grounds, including non-compliance with affidavit rules regarding the deponent's stated residence and issues concerning the execution and signatures on mortgage documents.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Circuit Court order was made within jurisdiction based on the averments and affidavits submitted.
• Even if jurisdiction was initially in question, the appeal to the High Court is a de novo hearing where the Plaintiff now has proper proofs, including the s. 67 certificate, establishing jurisdiction.
• The property is non-rateable domestic premises, so no rateable valuation exceeding the jurisdictional limit can exist.
• Objections to affidavits based on residence description are misconceived and do not invalidate the affidavits.
• Allegations of fraud and improper execution of mortgage documents lack substance as the mortgage deed was signed in duplicate and the Appellant had opportunity to inspect the documents.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework governing the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in property disputes, tracing its origins from 19th century legislation to current enactments, including the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. It acknowledged that jurisdiction depends on whether the rateable valuation exceeds a prescribed limit (€253.95), but held that failure to formally prove rateable valuation at the initial hearing does not automatically deprive the Circuit Court of jurisdiction.

The court reviewed precedent, particularly Harrington v. Murphy, which established that absence of formal proof creates a risk but does not nullify jurisdiction unless the valuation is proven to exceed the limit. It further noted that the property in question is non-rateable domestic premises under the Valuation Act 2001, meaning it cannot have a rateable valuation exceeding the statutory limit, thus confirming jurisdiction.

The court rejected the Plaintiff's reliance on the s. 67 certificate and local authority letter as sufficient legal evidence due to hearsay concerns and absence of statutory provision deeming such certificates conclusive. However, it concluded these evidentiary deficiencies were not fatal to jurisdiction.

Regarding procedural objections to affidavits, the court applied a purposive and common-sense approach, rejecting objections based on the deponent's stated business address and upholding the validity of the affidavits. Allegations of fraud and improper execution of mortgage documents were found to be misunderstandings without merit.

Although the court expressed reluctance in differing from the recent Finnegan decision, it justified doing so based on additional statutory provisions not considered in that case and the overall statutory and jurisprudential context. It recognized the resulting conflicting opinions as unsatisfactory but hoped for resolution by a higher appellate court.

Holding and Implications

The court AFFIRMED the Circuit Court order granting possession to the Plaintiff.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff's claim succeeds and possession is lawfully granted. The court held that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction despite the absence of formal proof of rateable valuation at the initial hearing, as the property was non-rateable domestic premises and the valuation did not exceed the jurisdictional limit. The court's decision does not establish new precedent but clarifies the application of existing statutory provisions and case law in this context. The court noted the existence of conflicting High Court opinions on this issue and the need for appellate clarification in the future.