The Court of Appeal has upheld the Property Registration Authority’s refusal to register a 2005 charge over two Wicklow land folios, dismissing an appeal by Launceston Property Finance DAC.
The dispute concerned land that remained registered in the name of Sean B. Murphy, who died in 1989. His personal representative, Angela Murphy, and her son Ivor Murphy agreed in 2005 to sell the lands to purchasers under a structure that did not involve an immediate transfer. They also gave Anglo Irish Bank Corporation plc a guarantee and a charge over their interests in the lands as security for lending to the purchasers. The judgment says the vendors received the full purchase price and records the appellant’s evidence that the purchasers later defaulted.
The Authority refused registration in 2018, taking the position that a charge granted by a personal representative could be registered only in the circumstances set out in section 60(3) of the Succession Act 1965. The appellant, which acquired the charge from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation in 2014, argued that the charge was made as part of the sale and that sections of the Registration of Title Act 1964 allowed it to be registered. The High Court upheld the refusal in 2019.
On appeal, the court considered whether a personal representative could create a charge over registered land that could be registered, and whether the charge holder could seek registration. It did not determine the scope of a personal representative’s common-law powers to create the charge.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s interpretation of section 61(2) of the 1964 Act. It found that the provision was ambiguous, but that other provisions supported the conclusion that it did not itself authorize registration of a charge made by a personal representative. The court noted that the Act expressly provides for registration of certain transfers by personal representatives, but contains no equivalent express mechanism for their charges. It also held that the charge was not “duly created” for the purposes of section 69, which allows registration of specified burdens.
The court dismissed the appeal. It gave a provisional view that the Authority was entitled to its costs in both courts. The appellant had 21 days to seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs; otherwise, the proposed costs order would be made. The court did not decide whether charges made under section 60(3) of the 1965 Act are registrable, and noted that the appellant may have other remedies to enforce its security.