The High Court allowed a couple’s appeal on jurisdiction in a mortgage possession case, finding that the Circuit Court lacked authority to hear the bank’s claim because their domestic dwelling was not rateable. The ruling set aside the Circuit Court’s possession order; it did not decide the underlying possession claim on its merits.
Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank began proceedings in October 2012 seeking possession of the couple’s home in Kingscourt, Co Cavan. The mortgage dated from 2006. The bank said repayments had been made from June 2006 until early August 2011 and that arrears stood at €14,315.96 when its supporting affidavit was sworn.
The Circuit Court made a possession order in March 2014. On appeal, the defendants argued that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because the property had no rateable valuation. The bank relied on a Valuation Office letter estimating that, if a building were erected to the dimensions shown in the deed plans, its rateable valuation would not exceed €252.95.
The High Court heard evidence from the head of Valuation Services. He said the property was built after the Valuation Act 2001 took effect and, as domestic premises, was neither rated nor rateable. He also said the letter was not a certificate under section 60 of that Act, and that the bank’s request and fee did not amount to an application under section 67.
The judge concluded that the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction over this possession claim depended on rateable valuation. The 2009 mortgage jurisdiction provisions did not apply to this 2006 mortgage, and the 2013 extension had not taken effect when these proceedings began. The court therefore held that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction both when the claim was initiated and when it was heard.
The judge described the provisional assessment process used for such cases as lacking statutory basis and said its wording could mislead when applied to domestic premises. The bank’s request to state a case to the Supreme Court was refused. The appeal was allowed on jurisdiction. The judgment noted that this outcome did not resolve the couple’s debt or repayment default, and said it postponed the day of reckoning while the debt continued to mount.