Irwin v Deasy

Last updated
Irwin v Deasy [2011] IESC 15
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameLiam J. Irwin v Thomas Deasy (and by order) Carmel Deasy [2011] IESC 15
Decided13 May 2011
Citation(s)[2010] IESC 34 (Unrep, SC, 14/5/2010); [2011] IESC 15; [2011] 2 IR 752; [2012] 1 ILRM 12
Transcript(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2011/S15.html
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court of Ireland
Appealed toSupreme Court of Ireland
Court membership
Judges sittingFinnegan J., Macken J., O'Donnell J.
Case opinions
The Supreme Court ruled that section 71(4) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 does not authorise division or sale in place of partition. The High Court's decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Liam J. Irwin v Thomas Deasy (and by order) Carmel Deasy[2011] IESC 15; [2011] 2 IR 752 [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case which primarily concerned the authority of the court to order a sale of the lands in place of their partition and the potential effect that would have on the interests of the co-owners.

Contents

The case involved the enforcement of three judgment mortgages granted by the High Court to the plaintiff which attached to the interest of the first defendant on registered land the he owned. [2] The plaintiff sought an order for sale in lieu of partition of the land, which was denied by the High Court. That decicion was appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was argued that the Court erred in law due to the Registration of Title Act 1964 and the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

The parties went on to settle the matter between themselves before the case was heard before the Supreme Court, [2] but the Court addressed the appeal due to exceptional circumstances, as it thought ruling on issues such as these would answer questions of public importance. [3] The Supreme Court decided that section 71(4) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 does not give the Court the authority to order a sale, a division, or a sale in lieu of partition. Thus, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court decision was affirmed. [1]

Background

The person who filed the appeal was the Collector General and worked for the Revenue Commissioners. They went to court on behalf of the Minister of Finance and the central fund. On Folio 8249 of the Register of County Cork, the respondents are listed as joint occupants of the land. [1] Judge Geoghegan joined Carmel Deasy as a co-defendant in the High Court. He did this as the High Court would not force the sale without Carmel Deasy's involvement. The land in Folio 8249 needed to be divided or sold, and the High Court had to decide if it had the authority to do so. Judge Laffoy ruled that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to impose a sale and opted to partition the registered land.

Grounds of Appeal

The High Court's ruling was challenged, claiming it violated the Registration of Title Act 1964 and the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The appellant arguing the High Court's ruling was legally incorrect due to the following reasons:

It is important to note that the applicable law in this case was in place before the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act of 2009, Section 31, came into effect. [4]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard the appeal even though the procedures were completed and there was no longer a legal issue between the parties. The peculiar circumstance is what caused this to occur. [5] The Supreme Court would continue to decide on issues of public interest even if the parties who brought the matter to court are no longer participating. [1]

Before making a decision, the Supreme Court talked about dividing the land. [6] The court said that co-owners who lived together could end their relationship if they both agreed to do so. They could give each person an equal share of the properties or sell the properties and split the money from the sales. The Act for Joint Tenants of 1542 established this in law. [7]

Section 3 of the Constitution said that the Court could order a sale or a split before the Partition Act of 1868. But the court could only use this power if they were sure that selling the land would be better than a split for both sides. If one party wants to sell, they have to prove that selling would be better for them. [7]

The court has a lot of discretion in determining how to assist a judgment mortgage under Section 71(4) of the Registration of Title Act of 1964. [4] According to the Supreme Court, the guidelines in this section are clear and must be adhered to. The appellant requested a sale rather than a division of the land, and the Supreme Court determined that the judge was correct in stating that Sections 3 and 4 of the Partition Act [4] did not provide the court the authority to approve that request. The person who filed the appeal, a judgment mortgagee of registered land, requested a sale rather than a division of the land. The Supreme Court is also certain that Section 71(4) of the Registration of Title Act of 1964 [4] does not allow the court the authority to approve a court order to accept a judgement mortgage's request for division or sale in place of a partition. [8]

The High Court's decision was upheld, and the appeal was denied. [1] [9]

Subsequent developments

The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act of 2009 was enacated with the goal of modernising Irish property law by removing some of the uncertainty present in outdated legislation.The Act has clarified the differences between Irish and English law. [10]

Related Research Articles

In law, conveyancing is the transfer of legal title of real property from one person to another, or the granting of an encumbrance such as a mortgage or a lien. A typical conveyancing transaction has two major phases: the exchange of contracts and completion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land Registration Act 2002</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Land Registration Act 2002 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which repealed and replaced previous legislation governing land registration, in particular the Land Registration Act 1925, which governed an earlier, though similar, system. The Act, together with the Land Registration Rules, regulates the role and practice of HM Land Registry.

Land registration is any of various systems by which matters concerning ownership, possession, or other rights in land are formally recorded to provide evidence of title, facilitate transactions, and prevent unlawful disposal. The information recorded and the protection provided by land registration varies widely by jurisdiction.

The Family Home Protection Act of 1976 is an Act of the Oireachtas which regulates an aspect of property law in Ireland and prevents the sale, partial sale, mortgage or re-mortgage of a property which is defined as a family home under the terms of the Act without the knowledge and consent of both spouses therein residing. A family home under the terms of the Act is a dwelling which is the ordinary residence of a married couple. The effect of the act is that, although the property may be in the registered ownership of one spouse only, this spouse cannot carry out transactions concerning the property – which could lead to the loss of the family home – without the other spouse's knowledge and consent.

The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting clauses relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012, and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%. Its enactment was delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum. The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015. It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.

<i>Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne, [2015] IESC 46, [2016] 1 IR 92, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court clarified the impact of a lender failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2010 on that lender's right to obtain an order of possession of mortgaged property.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General, [2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Gilroy v Flynn</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilroy v Flynn[2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>Goold v Collins and Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Goold v Collins and Ors [2004] IESC 38, [2004] 7 JIC 1201 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a statutory provision's constitutionality may be reviewed only at the behest of a litigant who is contesting some current application of that provision.

<i>Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others [2013] 2 ILRM 276; [2013] IESC 21; [2013] 3 IR 718 is an Irish Supreme Court case, where an appeal was granted and the court made a declaration that the provisions of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act are invalid considering the provisions of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. This court questioned the method by which wages and other benefits were set on a collective basis across numerous sectors.

<i>Director of Corporate Enforcement v Barry Seymour</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Director of Corporate Enforcement v Barry Seymour[2011] IESC 45; [2013] 1 IR 82, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that commercial misjudgement was not in itself sufficient to justify disqualification as a company director under the Companies Act 1990.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<i>Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman[2009] IESC 38; [2009] 2 ILRM 363; [2009] 3 IR 699 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the inherent jurisdiction of the court with respect of a solicitor's misconduct. The court also considered the remedies available where a solicitor is in breach of a solicitor's undertaking.

<i>Permanent TSB Plc v Langan and Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Permanent TSB Plc v Langan and Anor, [2017] IESC 71; [2018] 1 I.R. 375, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. The Court allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal. It was found that the Circuit Court had the authority to conduct possession proceedings in this case.

<i>Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A. [2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. It was decided that parents should not get an order for costs in the District Court unless there are specific elements in the case at hand. The Supreme Court set up these specific points and ruled that the Circuit Court should only overturn District Court decisions if they do not follow the principles and criteria set out.

<i>Child and Family Agency (Formerly Health Service Executive) v OA</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A.[2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is an Irish Supreme Court case which determined the appropriateness of awarding costs in child care cases where there was an unsuccessful parental challenge to an application made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). The Supreme Court established that there are circumstances where it might be suitable to award costs to unsuccessful parents who privately retained legal counsel; these being if the CFA "acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably in commencing or maintaining the proceedings", if "the outcome was particularly clear or compelling", or if it would be "particularly unjust towards the parents to award costs against them". It was stated that the District Court must outline its reasoning regarding a decision to award costs in such cases, holding that the Circuit Court should only reverse District Court decisions if the outlined principles and criteria are not followed.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Irwin v Deasy [2011] IESC 15 (13 May 2011)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2020-01-16.
  2. 1 2 "PILA Resources". PILA. 2016-05-11. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  3. ↑ Lambe, Deirdre; Curley, Vanessa (February 2015). "'Legal Update: Constitutional Law - Haebus Corpus'" (PDF). Journal of the Bar of Ireland. 20 (1): V – via The Law Library.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2023-03-29.
  5. ↑ https://mccarthy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Law-Society-Gazette-Article-July-20111.pdf
  6. ↑ https://www.courts.ie/ga/acc/alfresco/14935597-d3bd-4551-9101-067d8a435de0/2016_IEHC_478_1.pdf/pdf
  7. 1 2 "Irwin v. Deasy [2004] IEHC 104 (1 March 2004)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2023-03-29.
  8. ↑ "Procedure". SCOIRLBLOG. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  9. ↑ "Irwin v. Deasy - Judgment mortgage, registered land, sale in lieu of partition". decisis.ie. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  10. ↑ Bland, Peter (2015). Easements. Ireland: Round Hall. ISBN   9780414050648.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.