The Supreme Court has ruled that the Circuit Court can hear relevant possession proceedings involving domestic properties that have no rateable valuation, unless a valuation above €253.95 is established. A plaintiff must prove the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, either by showing the property’s valuation is at or below that threshold or by producing admissible evidence that it has no rateable valuation.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Clarke on 12 December 2017, arose from possession proceedings brought by Permanent TSB against David Langan over six properties. After mortgage repayments were not made, the Dublin Circuit Court ordered possession of all six properties in February 2015. Langan appealed to the High Court and challenged the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction, arguing the properties were not rateable under the Valuation Act 2001.
The High Court referred legal questions to the Court of Appeal, which concluded that the Circuit Court would not ordinarily have jurisdiction over a domestic dwelling rendered unrateable, subject to exceptions for certain statutory proceedings. Permanent TSB appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave because the issue was one of general public importance. The Attorney General intervened.
The Supreme Court focused on the Third Schedule to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. It held that the jurisdictional exclusion applies where a property has a rateable valuation exceeding €253.95. A property with no rateable valuation cannot be treated as exceeding the threshold merely because it is not rateable for the purposes of the 2001 Act. The judgment distinguished the technical meaning of “rateable” under that Act from whether a property actually has a rateable valuation.
The court said a valuation may be obtained under section 67 of the 2001 Act, including for property that is otherwise not rateable. It therefore required a plaintiff in a possession action of this kind to establish jurisdiction. That may be done with a valuation certificate showing a figure no higher than €253.95, or admissible evidence that the property has no actual or deemed rateable valuation. Evidence that a property is merely not rateable is insufficient.
The court proposed different answers from the Court of Appeal to the questions in the case stated and said the appeal should be allowed to that extent. Its ruling addressed the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction and the evidence needed to establish it; it did not itself set aside the earlier possession orders or finally determine the underlying possession dispute.