The Supreme Court has allowed Revenue to continue an appeal over the enforcement of judgment mortgages against co-owned registered property, despite a settlement which had ended the live dispute between the original parties.
The case arose from proceedings brought by Revenue Collector-General Liam Irwin against Thomas Deasy. Thomas Deasy and his estranged wife, Carmel Deasy, co-owned registered property over which Revenue had registered three judgment mortgages against Thomas Deasy’s interest.
In January 2006, the High Court considered whether a judgment creditor could enforce those mortgages in a way that also affected the rights of a co-owner who was not the judgment debtor.
Ms Justice Laffoy held that the effective options would be partition of the property or a sale instead of partition, followed by division of the proceeds. However, either course would affect Carmel Deasy’s property rights. The High Court concluded that Revenue lacked the necessary jurisdiction to obtain those remedies in relation to registered land.
Revenue appealed. After the appeal was lodged, however, Revenue and Thomas Deasy reached a settlement which satisfied all three judgment mortgages. That meant the dispute between them had become moot — in ordinary terms, there was no longer a live controversy requiring a court decision.
The Supreme Court nevertheless held that exceptional circumstances justified hearing the appeal. Chief Justice Murray said courts generally decline to decide academic or hypothetical cases, but may depart from that rule where an issue of exceptional public importance remains and a party retains a real material interest in its resolution.
Revenue said it had at least 20 similar cases under its management, while other proceedings raising the same legal issue were awaiting clarification. The point also had potentially important consequences for co-owners whose property might be affected by enforcement against another owner’s interest.
Carmel Deasy’s counsel was willing to argue the opposing position before the court. The Supreme Court therefore directed that the appeal could proceed and be listed for hearing in the following term. The underlying enforcement issue itself was not decided in this judgment.