BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Wise Finance Company Ltd. v. Farrell [1999] IEHC 202 (15th November, 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1999/202.html Cite as: [1999] IEHC 202 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. This
is the Plaintiff's claim for possession of lands comprising approximately 44
acres being the lands registered on Folio 6500 of the Register of Freeholders
County Westmeath pursuant to section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act,
1964 (the Act of 1964).
2. Subsection
(1) of section 62 of the Act of 1964 provides that a registered owner of land
may, subject to the provisions of the Act of 1964, charge the land with payment
of money either with or without interest. Subsection (6) of section 62
provides that, on registration of the owner of a charge on land for repayment
of any principal sum of money with or without interest, the instrument of
charge shall operate as a mortgage by deed within the meaning of the
Conveyancing Acts, and the registered owner of the charge shall, for the
purpose of enforcing his charge, have all the rights and powers of a mortgagee
under a mortgage by deed, including power to sell the estate or interest which
is subject to the charge. Subsection (7) of section 62 provides as follows:-
3. The
Court's discretion to make an order for possession under section 62(7) is
dependant on the Plaintiff establishing that he is the registered owner of a
charge on the registered land the subject of the proceedings and that repayment
of the principal money secured by the charge has become due.
4. In
this case the charge on foot of which the Plaintiff seeks an order for
possession is a charge which was registered on Folio 6500 on 29th August, 1997
(Instrument No. X6478/97 stamped to cover £75,000) for present and future
advances repayable with interest, the Plaintiff being registered as owner of
the charge.
5. Instrument
No. X6478/97 was an indenture of charge dated 11th July, 1997 made between the
Defendant of the one part and the Plaintiff of the other part (the Deed of
Charge). The relevant charging provision in the Deed of Charge in relation to
registered land was Clause 9 whereby the Defendant was expressed to charge by
way of charge for present and future advances the lands registered on Folio
6500 of the Register of Freeholders County Westmeath with payment to the
Plaintiff of "the secured monies". The expression "the secured monies" was
defined in recital A. B. of the Deed of Charge as meaning:-
6. The
covenant for payment in the Deed of Charge was Clause 1 under which the
defendant covenanted as follows:-
7. A
number of the words and expressions contained in Clause 1 were defined in
recital A. The "loan" was defined as meaning the principal sum specified at B
in the schedule to the Deed of Charge which had already been advanced or which
on the execution of the Deed of Charge would be advanced by the Plaintiff to
the Defendant in accordance with the terms of "the loan agreement". The
expression "the loan agreement" was defined as meaning the agreement short
particulars whereof were specified at A in the schedule to the Deed of Charge.
At A, in the schedule the particulars of the loan agreement set out were as
follows:-
9. In
the grounding affidavit of Ronald Weisz sworn on 24th May, 1999, it was averred
that the Defendant made an application to the Plaintiff for a loan in the
amount of IR£75,000 on 18th March, 1997. It was further averred that the
Plaintiff issued a Commitment Letter approving the loan request of the
Defendant on 30th June, 1997 and that the Defendant signed the Commitment
Letter, which was witnessed, accepting and agreeing to all terms in the
Commitment Letter on 1st July, 1997. The Commitment Letter was exhibited.
Under it's terms the Plaintiff made a commitment of funding in the gross amount
of £75,000 to the
11. The
period of the agreement provided for was one year. Interest was to be payable
on the principal sum of £75,000 at the rate of 2% monthly and the amount
of £9,000 included in the gross amount of £75,000 represented the
interest for the 7th to 12th months inclusive. The A.P.R. was stated to be
26.7%. However, the Defendant's total liability under the Commitment Letter
for the credit advance of £59,750 for one year was £84,000.
12. The
Plaintiff's claim for possession under section 62(7) has been advanced on the
basis that repayment of monies advanced on foot of the Commitment Letter on the
terms stipulated in the Commitment Letter was secured by the Deed of Charge.
This may well have been what was intended by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
However, the Deed of Charge made no reference to the Commitment Letter. It
referred to a letter of offer dated 18th March, 1997. Moreover, the covenant
to pay in the deed of charge was a covenant not for repayment of a gross amount
at the end of a period of one year but for payment of principal and interest by
agreed monthly instalments. In short, the provisions for payment in the Deed
of Charge are totally inconsistent with the provisions for repayment in the
Commitment Letter.
13. The
evidence before the Court does not establish that repayment of the principal
money secured by the Deed of Charge has become due, as required by section
62(7) of the Act of 1964. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that
the Court's discretion to make an order for possession exists.