The High Court has refused an application by Steven Hallihan to undo Rory O’Connor’s registration as owner of a property at Church Lane, Castlelyons, Co Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 7 March 2018, Ms Justice O’Regan found that ACC Loan Management DAC, formerly ACC Loan Management Limited, was entitled to transfer the property to O’Connor under its statutory power of sale. The court held that the company’s re-registration from a public company to a private company, and its change of name from ACC Bank plc, did not alter its rights or obligations. There was therefore no need to re-register the charges on the property in the company’s name.
Hallihan had applied under section 19(1) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 to annul O’Connor’s registration and have the previous ownership restored to himself and Killian and Kevin O’Shea. The three had been registered as owners in equal shares in 2008. The O’Sheas did not take part in the proceedings.
Hallihan argued that ACC Loan Management was not the registered owner of the relevant charges and could not exercise a power of sale. He also challenged the company’s authority to execute the transfer, saying no power of attorney had been produced, and alleged that his constitutional property rights had been breached. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kavanagh v McLaughlin.
O’Connor and ACC opposed the application. O’Connor’s evidence was that ACC Bank had appointed a receiver in 2012 after the borrowers defaulted, and that he had agreed to buy the property for €45,000. The judge distinguished Kavanagh, which concerned a transfer of a charge between two separate corporate entities. Here, ACC Bank and ACC Loan Management remained the same legal entity after re-registration and the name change.
The judge also found that the transfer was executed under the company’s seal in accordance with its articles of association, so no power of attorney was relied on and none needed to be produced. She concluded that the transfer and O’Connor’s registration complied with the relevant legislation and that there had been no breach of Hallihan’s constitutional rights.
O’Connor had also argued that section 19(1) was not the proper route because there was no formal decision by the Property Registration Authority. The judge noted that objection but dealt with the substance of Hallihan’s concerns, referring to the application and submissions under Order 96. She declined to make an Isaac Wunder order restricting Hallihan from bringing further proceedings, saying the earlier plenary proceedings had been discontinued and the issues had now been fully heard and determined. The relief sought in Hallihan’s motion was refused.