The High Court has confirmed the Property Registration Authority’s refusal to register a charge over two Wicklow land folios, finding that the statutory provisions relied on by the applicant did not give a deceased owner’s personal representative the relevant power to register it.
The appeal was brought under section 19 of the Registration of Title Act 1964 by System Launceston Property Finance DAC. It challenged the Authority’s ruling of 18 July 2018, which refused registration of a charge dated 9 December 2005. The charge had been made by Angela Murphy, as legal personal representative of Sean B. Murphy, and Ivor Murphy in favour of Anglo Irish Bank Corporation plc. The applicant had acquired Anglo’s interest under a 2014 loan sale deed.
Sean B. Murphy died in 1989 as registered owner of the lands. In 2005, his personal representative and Ivor Murphy joined in selling three registered plots to purchasers for €2.1 million, financed by an Anglo loan. They also gave Anglo a guarantee and indemnity secured by the charge. The Authority registered the charge against land previously owned by Ivor Murphy, but not against the subject property.
The court rejected the applicant’s submission that the transaction was in substance a sale rather than a charge. It found the relevant relationship was between charger and chargee, so registration had to be assessed under the law governing charges. The judge also said the purchasers’ payment of the full purchase price meant a beneficial interest had passed, despite no transfer having been executed.
The applicant argued that section 61(2) of the 1964 Act allowed a personal representative to make registrable dispositions as if they were the registered owner. The judge held that the section referred to a “registered disposition” and did not make the representative’s rights co-extensive with those of the registered owner. The court also found no basis in section 69(2) for the representative to register the charge.
The judgment proceeded on the assumption, for the purposes of the appeal, that the personal representative had a common law entitlement to enter the transaction. The issue was whether the charge could be registered under the 1964 Act. The court noted that both parties accepted section 60(3) of the Succession Act 1965 did not apply, because the charge raised money for the purchasers rather than for the estate purposes listed in that provision.
The court concluded that a charge could be registered under section 60(3) in conjunction with provisions of the 1964 Act, but that route was not available on the accepted facts of this case. It confirmed the Authority’s 18 July 2018 ruling. The judgment does not determine any broader dispute over the parties’ underlying interests in the land.