The High Court has ordered an extension of time to register a charge over property held by Peleton Limited, which was in receivership, subject to undertakings from Allied Irish Banks Plc. The order allows 21 days from its perfection to register the particulars of the October 2004 charge and preserves any rights acquired by parties between the charge’s creation and its actual registration.
The application was brought by the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), which had taken over the Bank’s security and appointed Declan Taite as statutory receiver. The Companies Registration Office had returned a notice of the receiver’s appointment because it had no record of a mortgage dated 20 October 2004. NAMA then sought an extension under section 106 of the Companies Act 1963 to register the charge.
The court found that the failure to deliver the charge particulars in time was due to the Bank’s inadvertence. The judge examined evidence about a separate charge dated 21 December 2004, registered with the CRO against the same property. The court concluded that it was a replica of the October charge, had never been stamped, and appeared not to have been intended for the Bank to rely on. The judge described the Bank’s attempt to correct the missed registration by creating and registering that later charge as wholly inappropriate.
As conditions of the extension, the Bank must undertake to stamp the December 2004 charge and confirm it will not rely on it. It must also take steps to prevent reliance on it, including executing a deed of release in favour of Peleton and registering a memorandum of satisfaction with the CRO. The Bank’s undertaking is a condition of the order; the judgment does not state that these steps had already been completed.
The judgment also addressed the possible priority dispute with Musgrave Ltd. Letters indicated an agreement that the Bank’s security would rank first up to a stated limit, with Musgrave’s charge ranking second within its own limit. But Musgrave had not been notified of the application, and the judge said the position of other third parties was unknown. The order therefore does not decide any disputed priority rights: it preserves rights, if any, acquired between creation and actual registration. The judge said NAMA could rely on the Bank–Musgrave agreement if a dispute arose.
The originating notice of motion was to be amended to identify NAMA as the applicant. The court said its conclusions were not influenced by a separate statutory provision concerning acquired bank assets.