Supreme Court to decide issues over rights of land co-owners

THE SUPREME Court has agreed to decide issues of “fundamental importance” relating to the property rights of co-owners of registered lands in circumstances where creditors want to divide or sell the property to satisfy a judgment mortgage obtained against just one of the co-owners.

The issues were raised in proceedings where the Revenue sought to execute judgment orders against a man regarding property he and his estranged wife co-owned. The High Court had ruled against the Revenue, which then appealed to the Supreme Court. The man later reached a settlement with the Revenue, but it asked the Supreme Court to still decide the issues due to their relevance to many other cases.

Yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said the issues were of “fundamental importance” to the Revenue in the context of its powers to recover outstanding taxes.

The issues had implications for the property rights of co-owners of registered land against whom it was sought to enforce judgment orders. In those circumstances, and as the estranged wife’s counsel agreed to take on the defence role, the Supreme Court would decide the issues in the next court term, he said.

The Revenue had brought proceedings against the man, whose estranged wife was later joined to the case by order of the High Court as a co-owner with him of registered property. The Revenue had three judgment orders registered against the man’s interest in the land only. The woman raised the issue of whether the High Court had jurisdiction to give a judgment creditor a remedy for enforcement, when that remedy affected not just the judgment debtor but the property co-owner.

Ms Justice Mary Laffoy found where a judgment mortgage is registered against the interest of one owner of co-owned registered land, the only effective remedy for enforcement would be to order partition of the land between the co-owners, or a sale, after which the proceeds would be divided between the owners.

She ruled that both these options would interfere with the property rights of the co-owner and, in the absence of specific jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to make such an order.

She also ruled the High Court had no jurisdiction to make an order for sale of the entire co-owned property, in lieu of partition of the land, to enforce a judgment mortgage.