The Supreme Court dismissed Patrick (otherwise Paddy) Hegarty’s appeal against a High Court order allowing Danske Bank A/S to pursue a well charging order over lands in County Cork. It held that a court-approved settlement permitted the bank to register a judgment mortgage over property other than a named Cork address once a 12-month stay had expired.
The dispute followed summary summons proceedings brought by the bank in 2002 over sums due from a banking relationship. In March 2006, the High Court recorded a settlement and made it a rule of court. The agreement provided for judgment in the sum of €60,000, with execution stayed for 12 months. It expressly allowed the bank to register a judgment mortgage “forthwith” against property at 45 Belmount Park, Ballinlough, but barred enforcement or execution steps for 12 months.
In August 2007, the bank registered a judgment mortgage against lands identified in two County Cork folios. It then sought a well charging order. The High Court granted that order in July 2009, along with provisions allowing Hegarty to dispute the amount due and directing accounts and inquiries. Hegarty appealed, arguing that the settlement confined registration to the Belmount Park property.
Delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment on 15 May 2012, Mr Justice Clarke said the appeal turned on the objective interpretation of the written settlement. The Court held that the agreement imposed a general 12-month restriction on enforcement, with an express exception allowing immediate registration against Belmount Park. It did not say that registration or enforcement was permanently confined to that property. After the stay expired, the bank could take lawful steps to enforce the judgment, including registering a mortgage over other property it could identify as belonging to Hegarty.
The Court said the judgment remained valid and unpaid. It did not decide whether Hegarty could pursue a claim about the bank’s acknowledged overcharging, or whether any such claim was barred or affected by an earlier payment of IR£15,000. Those questions were outside the issues in this appeal. The Court also treated the bank’s failure to register against Belmount Park as irrelevant to the settlement’s meaning.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order, including the well charging and ancillary orders, and dismissed the appeal.