Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne is a 2015 decision of the Irish Supreme Court that clarified how mortgage repossession cases should be handled when lenders do not follow the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears, and how courts should deal with possession under Irish law.

Background in simple terms:
- Irish Life and Permanent plc (the lender) brought possession proceedings against two borrowers, Dunne and Dunphy. The Circuit Court decisions were appealed to the High Court, which asked the Supreme Court to decide two legal questions.
- The questions covered: whether a High Court judge can state a case to the Supreme Court in an appeal from the Circuit Court even when no oral evidence was heard; and how the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (the Code) and the Registration of Title Act should affect an order for possession.

Key holdings:

1) Jurisdiction to state a case to the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court held that a High Court judge may state a case to the Supreme Court in an appeal from the Circuit Court even if there was no oral evidence in the Circuit Court. This uses the Interpretation Act to allow a broader way of interpreting the law when the Oireachtas’ wording would not make sense in the whole statutory scheme.

2) Failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears
- When a lender seeks possession, the court must be satisfied that the lender complied with the moratorium in the Code. If possession proceedings start during the moratorium or in clear breach of it, the court should refuse to grant possession.
- However, non-compliance with other parts of the Code does not, as a legal matter, prevent the lender from obtaining a possession order. The key issue is whether the moratorium was respected.

3) Possession under the Registration of Title Act 1964
- For possession under section 62(7), the court must decide whether the principal sums secured by the mortgage have become due, by looking at the contract terms.
- The court found that the entire principal sum was due on 1 December 2009 and that this date was crucial for determining entitlement to possession.
- A lender’s conditional promise not to exercise its right to possess would not erase the lender’s legal entitlement if the debt had become due and the conditions were not met.

Impact:
- Lenders must show compliance with the moratorium in the Code to obtain possession.
- Breaches of other Code provisions do not automatically defeat a lender’s right to possession.
- When dealing with possession under the Registration of Title Act, the date the debt becomes due and the contract terms are decisive.

Citation:
- The case is cited as [2015] IESC 46; [2016] 1 IR 92. The Supreme Court opinion was written by Clarke J, with concurrence from other judges.