The High Court dismissed a group of possession proceedings brought by GE Capital Woodchester Homeloans Limited, finding that it should follow a recent High Court decision on the lender’s demand letters rather than reconsider their adequacy.
The cases concerned applications under section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964. The central issue was whether the lender’s standard letters amounted to a valid demand for repayment of the full amount secured by the mortgages. The parties did not dispute that a valid demand was required before proceedings could be brought.
The lender relied on two letters sent in the case involving Maureen Faulkner Madden. The first, dated 7 February 2009, said that arrears and charges had to be paid within seven days or the account would be referred to solicitors for repossession proceedings. It also stated that the entire outstanding balance had fallen due. A later letter, dated 24 August 2009, stated the arrears and full balance, demanded vacant possession within ten days, and said proceedings would not issue if the arrears were paid in that period.
The judgment reviewed earlier decisions addressing whether a demand must clearly and unconditionally require payment. It also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in *The Wise Company Limited v John Lanigan* and the High Court’s ruling in *GE Capital Woodchester Homeloans Limited v Reade*. In *Reade*, the court concluded that similar letters did not demand payment of the full secured balance in the manner required by the mortgage terms.
Justice Dunne considered whether judicial comity allowed her to reach a different conclusion from *Reade*. She found no sufficient basis to revisit that recent decision, which she said rested on the binding Supreme Court authority in *Wise*. The court therefore did not make a fresh determination of the letters’ adequacy in these proceedings.
The judgment records proceedings involving Maureen Faulkner Madden, David and Margaret Digan, O’Rourke and Kearney, Tadhg and Geraldine Buckley, and Ciaran Healy. The court dismissed the proceedings. It did not order possession of the properties.