The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order granting Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank possession of a Galway property owned by Shane Hanley and Alan Giblin, after rejecting Hanley’s appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 26 November 2015, Mr Justice Noonan said Hanley had not established a defence to the bank’s claim. The property was a dwelling that the defendants rented to tenants from time to time; it was not either defendant’s family home.
The appeal focused on whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to make the possession order when the bank had not produced formal proof of the property’s rateable valuation at the original hearing. The Circuit Court made its order on 18 December 2014. The appeal was heard by the High Court as a rehearing, with additional evidence submitted.
The bank later produced a local authority letter stating that the property was not separately rated and that, if rated, its valuation would not exceed €253.95. It also produced a Valuations Office determination under section 67 of the Valuation Act 2001, setting a rateable value of €15.75.
Justice Noonan ruled that neither document was admissible as proof of its contents: the Valuations Office document was hearsay, and the local authority letter was even less capable of proving the valuation. He said, however, that those documents were not essential to the bank’s claim. The property was domestic premises and was not rateable. The court concluded that the absence of a rateable valuation did not itself prevent the Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction.
The judgment differed from a High Court decision earlier that year in a similar Bank of Ireland case, which had found that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction where the valuation had not been established. Justice Noonan said the earlier court did not appear to have been referred to relevant provisions of the 1877 legislation. He acknowledged that the two judgments left conflicting views on the issue and said a further appellate decision was hoped for.
Hanley also challenged the bank officials’ affidavits, the signing of the loan offer and mortgage deed, and his opportunity to inspect the deed. The judge rejected those objections, finding no substance in them. He affirmed the Circuit Court’s possession order.