Permanent TSB PLC v Langan; Permanent TSB PLC v Langan (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns the appeal of the Defendant/Appellant against possession orders made by the Circuit Court in respect of six domestic properties located in The City and The State, five of which were registered and one unregistered. The properties had been let under various letting agreements. The proceedings were initiated by two separate civil bills, one covering the five registered properties and the other the unregistered property. At the time proceedings commenced, none of the properties had an official rateable valuation, though it was pleaded that each had a valuation below the Circuit Court jurisdictional limit of €253.95.

The appeal before the High Court followed the Circuit Court orders dated 23 February 2015. A case was stated to the Court of Appeal addressing jurisdictional questions regarding the Circuit Court's competence when properties lack a rateable valuation. The Court of Appeal delivered judgment in July 2016, followed by a Supreme Court decision in December 2017 which clarified that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction is not excluded solely because a property is not rateable and that jurisdiction depends on whether the rateable valuation is below the statutory limit.

Subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, the original mortgagee sold its interest to the second plaintiff/respondent, who was added as co-plaintiff by order in March 2022. The Defendant/Appellant’s attempt to appeal this substitution order was struck out. The matter returned for hearing before the High Court judge who had initially stated the case.

The respondents obtained official certificates of rateable valuation for the six properties in June 2022, all showing valuations below the jurisdictional threshold. The Defendant/Appellant sought an adjournment and later argued that jurisdiction must be established at the date of issuing the civil bill, not by evidence arising later.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 when a property is not rated.
2. How jurisdiction may be exercised by the Circuit Court if no certificate of rateable valuation exists at the time of proceedings.
3. Whether the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is automatically excluded if the property is not rateable by virtue of the Valuation Act 2001 or otherwise.
4. Whether jurisdictional proof must exist at the date of issuing the civil bill or can be established by evidence at the hearing.
5. The legal nature and effect of the endorsement of jurisdiction on a civil bill in possession proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Jurisdictional proof must exist at the date the civil bill is issued; the plea of jurisdiction must be factually true at that time.
• In summary possession proceedings, the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction on the face of the civil bill and cannot rely on evidence arising after the issue date.
• The initial evidence proffered by the plaintiffs was hypothetical and insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
• The respondents cannot introduce new evidence after the issue date to establish jurisdiction.
• Argued that a defendant faced with a summary claim has no obvious right to defend except by leave of the court (rejected by the court).

Respondents' Arguments

• The endorsement of jurisdiction on the civil bill is an assertion of fact, not proof; jurisdiction must be established by evidence at hearing.
• The judgment of the Supreme Court supports that jurisdiction is to be proved by affidavit or oral evidence at trial.
• The purpose of pleadings in summary claims is to inform the defendant of the case, not to prove facts on the face of the pleading.
• Reliance on Supreme Court dicta that once a claim is pleaded, the plaintiff must prove the facts, and the defendant may challenge them at hearing.
• Argued that the certificates of rateable valuation obtained post-issuance establish jurisdiction at the hearing stage.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework governing Circuit Court jurisdiction, emphasizing that jurisdiction depends on the rateable valuation of the property not exceeding €253.95. The court recognized that pleadings must state material facts but are not evidence themselves; proof of jurisdiction is to be adduced at hearing by affidavit or oral evidence.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that jurisdiction must be established at the date of issue of the civil bill, holding instead that jurisdiction is to be determined at the date of the hearing or order. This approach aligns with the statutory scheme and prior case law, which focus on the date of determination rather than initiation.

The court noted that the initial evidence regarding rateable valuation was insufficient when proceedings were issued, as the properties lacked official valuations. However, subsequent certificates obtained by the respondents demonstrated valuations below the jurisdictional threshold, thereby establishing jurisdiction at hearing.

The court also clarified that defendants in summary possession proceedings have the right to defend claims and that summary judgment processes do not remove this entitlement. The endorsement of jurisdiction on a civil bill is a pleading, an assertion of fact, which must be proved at trial rather than assumed or conclusively established on the face of the pleading.

In conclusion, the court found that the respondents had met their burden of proof to establish jurisdiction at the hearing stage through uncontroverted affidavit evidence of rateable valuations.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is DISPOSAL IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS, confirming that the respondents are entitled to possession of the six properties described in the civil bills.

The direct effect is that the possession orders previously made are upheld and enforceable. The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction in Circuit Court possession proceedings is statutory and must be established by evidence at hearing, not merely by assertions in pleadings at the commencement of proceedings.

No new precedent was set beyond clarification and application of existing principles regarding jurisdictional proof and the nature of pleadings in summary possession claims.