ADM Londis Company Ltd v Flynn (Approved) [2020] IECA 260 (29 September 2020)

ADM Londis Company Ltd v Flynn (Approved) [2020] IECA 260 (29 September 2020)

The Court held that registration of a charge is not, in itself, sufficient to relieve a claimant from the obligation to prove its debt and security before the Examiner in mortgage proceedings. The Examiner was entitled to require proof of execution and enforceability of the charge. AIB failed to advance its claim or address the Examiner’s concerns for five years, and no 'special circumstances' were shown to warrant varying or discharging the Examiner’s Certificate under Order 55 Rule 50. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] IECA 260
Parties
First Named Respondent: ADM Mersey PLC (formerly ADM Londis Company Ltd); Second Named Respondent: Aidan Flynn; Claimant/appellant: Allied Irish Banks PLC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing to Vary or Discharge Examiner’s Certificate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Priority of Charges, Judgment Mortgages, Land Registration, Examiner’s Powers, Special Circumstances Under Order 55 Rule 50
Property Law Civil Procedure Priority of Charges Judgment Mortgages Land Registration Examiner’s Powers Special Circumstances Under Order 55 Rule 50

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADM Mersey PLC (formerly ADM Londis Company Ltd)

First Named Respondent

Aidan Flynn

Second Named Respondent

Allied Irish Banks PLC

Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing to Vary or Discharge Examiner’s Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registration of a mortgage charge in the Land Registry is conclusive evidence of entitlement to priority over a subsequent judgment mortgage in the context of a mortgage suit and distribution of sale proceeds
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should vary or discharge an Examiner’s Certificate under Order 55 Rule 50 in the absence of 'special circumstances'
  3. 3 Whether the Examiner was entitled to require proof of the charge beyond registration

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that registration of a charge is not, in itself, sufficient to relieve a claimant from the obligation to prove its debt and security before the Examiner in mortgage proceedings. The Examiner was entitled to require proof of execution and enforceability of the charge. AIB failed to advance its claim or address the Examiner’s concerns for five years, and no 'special circumstances' were shown to warrant varying or discharging the Examiner’s Certificate under Order 55 Rule 50. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Examiner’s Certificate stands; no variation or discharge ordered
  • Application to allocate sale proceeds as per Payment Schedule to ADM Mersey to proceed, subject to costs