The Court of Appeal has dismissed Katherine Ross’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to annul registrations of a charge over land in County Cork.
Ross, who represented herself, had applied under section 19(1) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 to remove burdens recorded at entries 4, 5 and 6 of Folio 98228F. She also sought consequential changes to the register and summary compensation in lieu of costs. The High Court dismissed her application in November 2017.
The charge was created in 2005 in favour of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited (BOSI), after Ross was registered as owner of the land. BOSI merged with Bank of Scotland plc (BOS) at 23:59 on 31 December 2010. Under the merger, BOSI’s assets and liabilities transferred to BOS. BOS was registered as owner of the charge in April 2015, then transferred it to Start Mortgages Limited, which was registered the following day.
Ross argued, among other things, that BOS should have registered as a foreign company in Ireland and that its failure to do so undermined the subsequent registrations. She also argued that the High Court judge had rushed or hindered her presentation and was biased against her.
The Court of Appeal said there was no probative evidence that BOS had an established place of business in Ireland at the relevant time. It therefore was not required to register under the provisions of the Companies Act 1963 relied on by Ross, or to file charge particulars through the “Slavenburg” process. The court held that the Irish land registration requirements applied and that BOS’s registration as owner of the charge in April 2015 satisfied them.
The court also rejected the complaints about the High Court hearing. It said the hearing transcript did not support the allegations of unfairness or bias, and that the judge’s questions were aimed at understanding Ross’s arguments. The judgment noted that litigants are not necessarily entitled to read their documents or submissions into the court record, and that hearing time may be apportioned fairly.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal grounds were without foundation in law or evidence and dismissed the appeal. It did not grant Ross’s requested annulment or consequential changes to the folio.