The High Court dismissed David Langan’s appeal against possession orders covering six rental properties in Dublin City or County, finding that the mortgagees had established the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction with valuation certificates produced after the proceedings began.
Ms Justice Baker delivered judgment on 20 December 2022. The possession orders had been made by the Circuit Court on 23 February 2015. The properties were the subject of two civil bills, both dated 12 March 2014: one covering five registered properties and the other an unregistered property.
The dispute had previously gone to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court over whether the Circuit Court could hear possession claims where the properties had no rateable valuation. The Supreme Court held in 2017 that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction was not automatically excluded because a property was unrated. A plaintiff had to establish that the property’s rateable valuation did not exceed the statutory limit, either with a valuation certificate or admissible evidence that it had no rateable valuation.
After that decision, the respondents obtained certificates under the Valuation Act 2001. Affidavits exhibited valuations of €22.86, €16.92, €26.28, €22.50, €19.84 and €12.78. The judge said each was below the Circuit Court limit of €253.95, and the combined valuation of the five properties in one civil bill was also within the limit.
Langan argued that the plaintiffs had to possess sufficient proof of jurisdiction when they issued the civil bills and could not rely on evidence obtained later. The respondents argued that jurisdiction was an asserted fact to be proved at the hearing.
Justice Baker said pleadings identify the material facts behind a claim; they do not provide the evidence used to prove those facts. She agreed that the court had to be satisfied about its jurisdiction before making an order, and that jurisdiction could not simply be assumed. But she rejected the argument that valuation evidence had to exist on the date the civil bills were issued.
The judge noted that the original evidence included a Valuation Office letter based on hypothetical building dimensions and would probably not have been sufficient to establish jurisdiction. She said she did not need to decide that question because the later certificates showed valuations below the limit and were undisputed.
The court concluded that the respondents had established jurisdiction and met the required proofs. Justice Baker held that they were entitled to possession of all six premises. The judgment records that conclusion; it does not detail any further enforcement steps.