The High Court dismissed John Hanrahan’s appeal and affirmed a Circuit Court order for possession and sale of lands in County Tipperary under a registered charge held by Denis O’Connor and Neale O’Hanlon, trading as BBT.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 20 February 2013. The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order made at Clonmel on 1 February 2011, relating to lands in Folio 993F of the register, County Tipperary. The charge was made on 7 July 2008 and registered on 17 July 2008.
The appeal had previously been dismissed on 20 November 2012 when Hanrahan did not appear. He appeared the following day and asked to defend it. The judge allowed him to bring a motion to re-enter the appeal. On 21 January 2013, the court set aside the earlier judgment and allowed him to defend the appeal. At the hearing covered by this judgment, Hanrahan examined three witnesses, including his former solicitor, who had drafted the charge.
Hanrahan did not dispute that the money claimed was due or that he had signed the charge. He argued that the charge was invalid because it had initially been returned as unsigned and should have been re-executed. The judge found no basis for that argument: the evidence was that the charge was resubmitted and accepted on the register as a valid charge.
The plaintiffs acknowledged that 12 per cent of their fees related to another case referred to as the “Judge McMahon case”. The judge said those fees were still acknowledged as due, incurred by Hanrahan and unpaid. He found no provision in the charge excluding fees that might be recovered elsewhere.
Hanrahan also questioned a 15 September 2009 letter from James Kelly & Sons, Solicitors, about enquiries concerning the mapped area. The judge concluded that the letter recounted earlier events: the enquiries had been made in June 2008, not when the letter was written.
The judge found no invalidity in the charge or its registration. He said the money was owed, proper demand had been made and proved, and it remained unpaid, so the charge had crystallised. The judgment affirmed the Circuit Court order and dismissed the appeal. It does not set out the amount claimed.