The Court of Appeal has dismissed Charles McGuinness’s appeal against the refusal to cancel judgment mortgages registered in favour of Ulster Bank Ireland DAC on six property folios in Monaghan, Cavan and Mayo.
The appeal concerned a decision by the Property Registration Authority of Ireland (PRAI), which had refused Mr McGuinness’s 2019 application to remove the entries. The Court of Appeal held that the PRAI was entitled to refuse the application because a dispute remained over whether the bank employee who swore the registration affidavits was authorised to do so. The court was deciding an appeal under section 19(1) of the Registration of Title Act 1964; it did not itself order cancellation of the mortgages.
The bank had obtained High Court judgments against Mr McGuinness in 2010 for €12 million and €1,651,948. The first judgment was registered against five folios in Cavan and Monaghan in December 2010. Both judgments were registered against a Mayo folio in April 2011.
Mr McGuinness argued that the affidavits were invalid because the person who swore them, Ted Mahon, did not fall within the limited categories of company representatives permitted under earlier judgment-mortgage legislation. He also argued that the affidavits did not establish Mr Mahon’s authority and that company law rules required an agent acting for the bank to be registered with the Companies Registration Office.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It said the 2009 Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act used a simpler process and allowed an “authorised agent” to apply to register a judgment mortgage. The applicable form required the deponent to describe himself as a “creditor” under the Act, which the court said included an authorised agent. It found no requirement in the legislation or form for separate evidence of that authority to be included in the affidavit.
The court also said Mr McGuinness had not produced evidence that Mr Mahon lacked authority. Although Mr McGuinness had established that Michael McNaughton was not a director of the bank in the corporate-law sense, the court said a person did not have to be a director to confirm another agent’s authority.
On the European company-law argument, the court found no basis for concluding that a failure to register an agent automatically invalidated the judgment-mortgage entries, or that a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union was required. It did not decide whether the relevant disclosure rules applied to an employee such as Mr Mahon.
The court’s proposed order is to dismiss the appeal. It stated provisionally that the PRAI was entitled to its appeal costs. Mr McGuinness may object within five days of the judgment, after which the court will decide how to proceed on costs.