The Court of Appeal dismissed Eugenie Houston’s appeal and affirmed a High Court order enforcing four judgment mortgages over her County Kildare home. The order allows the property to be sold if the sums due are not paid within three months. The appeal judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 7 April 2020, addressed the High Court’s jurisdiction and Houston’s challenges to the costs and mortgage registrations.
Wendy Doyle, a solicitor, had obtained three High Court costs orders against Houston, one by consent, and a District Court costs order after separate proceedings were dismissed on their merits. None of those orders was appealed. Doyle registered four judgment mortgages against Houston’s interest in Folio 25772F, County Kildare. The Property Registration Authority declined Houston’s request to vacate the entries, and she had not obtained a court order to cancel them.
In March 2019, the High Court declared €58,888.89 in principal and interest due on the three High Court orders and €4,700 due on the District Court order. It ordered the lands and premises sold if the sums were not paid within three months. Houston argued on appeal that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the property was her principal private dwelling and worth less than €3 million. She also disputed Doyle’s standing, the underlying costs orders, the taxation certificate and the fairness of the High Court proceedings.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court and Circuit Court had concurrent jurisdiction over the well charging proceedings. It ruled that section 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 did not remove the High Court’s jurisdiction because the judgment mortgages were created in 2017, after the section’s 1 December 2009 cutoff. Houston had not applied to have the matter remitted to the Circuit Court.
The court also held that the registered folio was conclusive as to the registered interests in the land in the circumstances before it. Since the entries had not been cancelled, the courts could not go behind the register to revisit the mortgages or underlying costs orders. It found no basis to disturb the High Court’s acceptance of evidence that the Taxing Master had authority to tax the costs, that electronic records did not breach the applicable court rules, and that duty on the taxation certificate had been paid. The court found no unfairness in refusing cross-examination or an adjournment to a plenary hearing.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.