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 £1, 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 Financial Co. Ltd. v. Lanagan [2000] IEHC 79 (6th November, 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2000/79.html Cite as: [2000] IEHC 79 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. The
Plaintiff claims possession of certain lands registered on folio 14339F Co.
Kilkenny, pursuant to section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964.
Section 62 provides that the registered holder of lands may charge those lands
with the payment of moneys with or without interest, and that on registration
of such a charge, the instrument of charge should operate as a mortgage by deed
within the meaning of the Conveyancing Acts and the registered owner of the
charge shall, for the purposes of enforcing his charge, have all the rights and
powers of a mortgagee under a mortgage by deed, including the power to sell
such lands.
2. The
Plaintiff is the registered owner of a charge which was registered on the 11th
March, 1997 and which is described on the folio as “Charge for present
and future advances repayable with interest”, and is noted to be stamped
to cover £25,000. The instrument which is registered is in fact a
mortgage and charge dated 25th February 1997 and made between the defendant of
the one part and the plaintiff of the other part, and by clause 9 there of the
defendant charged the lands with the payment to the Plaintiff of “the
secured monies”. The phrase “the secured monies” is
defined in the deed as meaning all monies and liability which the defendant
covenants to pay to the Plaintiff or discharge under the covenants contained in
the deed.
3. Under
Clause 1(a) of the deed the Defendant covenants with the Plaintiff to repay to
the Plaintiff:-
4. To
understand what is meant by this covenant it is necessary to go back to the
definitions in the deed of charge. “The loan” is defined as the
principal sum specified in the schedule being the loan already advanced or to
be advanced on the execution of the charge. In the schedule this is stated to
be IR£25,000. “The loan agreement”, is defined as the
agreement short particulars whereof are specified in the schedule, and this is
stated in the schedule to be:-
5. Accordingly,
in Clause 1 (a) of the deed the primary covenant to repay is stated to be a
covenant to repay IR£25,000 by monthly installments until the entire loan
is repaid. Clause 1(b) provides that if any of the monthly installments are
not paid on the specified day, the defendant will pay further interest at a
rate at which is in fact left blank. This again is a provision which
anticipates repayment by monthly installments.
6. Clause
1(c) contains a covenant to pay on demand the mortgage expenses, which does not
arise in the present case and Clause 1 (d) contains a further convenant to pay
to the Plaintiff and discharge on demand “the general indebtedness and
liability.” This latter phrase is again defined in the definition
Clause, the effect of the definition being that it encompasses all monies owing
by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for whatever reason, other than the loan and
interest thereon and the mortgage expenses.
7. The
loan agreement of 6th February, 1997 is in fact a commitment letter from the
Plaintiff, which was accepted by the Defendant. The loan referred to in it is
a loan stated to be of a gross amount of £25,000, and the contents are
summarized on the 1st page:-
8. The
agreement simply uses the £ sign without stating whether it is Sterling or
Irish currency, but it does provide that the loan may be provided by the
Plaintiff at its sole discretion in Irish punts or in Sterling, and the
Defendant is to repay the gross amount of the loan in the same currency as that
in which it was provided. The commitment letter also contains a provision
whereby if the loan is not fully repaid within three months, interest will be
paid monthly and in advance at 3% per month on the unpaid gross loan balance,
and the loan may be renewed by the borrower on this basis after the initial
three month period on a monthly basis on the payment of interest at this rate.
9. In
fact, the Plaintiff advanced to the Defendant and to his solicitors the net sum
of £21,250 in Sterling, and are now claiming the repayment of over
£62,000 in Sterling.
10. The
charge which is registered is quite clear. It charges the lands with the sum
of IR£25,000, not that sum in Sterling, by the monthly installments set
out in the commitment letter. In fact the loan was £25,000 sterling and
the commitment letter expressly provides that it is not repayable by
installments. The Plaintiff’s have stated in Court that they will waive
their right to be paid Sterling and will accept the sum to be paid to be due in
Irish punts. That is not the point. The charge, which is the only document
which will allow them to obtain possession of the lands, is a charge in respect
of an advance in Irish currency payable by installments. No advance was made
in Irish currency, and no provision was made for payment by installments.
11. The
Plaintiffs also make the case that they are entitled to possession in any event
under the covenant to discharge on demand the general indebtedness and
liability. However, the definition of “the general indebtedness and
liability” which I have referred to above expressly excludes loan and
interest payable under the commitment letter, and I have no doubt that the
moneys which were advanced were intended to be advanced as part of the loan
under the commitment letter. Accordingly, these monies would not appear to be
caught by the phrase “the general indebtedness and liability”.
12. The
Plaintiff can only recover possession if the principal monies secured by the
deed of charge has become due. In view of the contradictions between the deed
of charge and the commitment letter I do not think it could be said that the
monies secured by the deed of charge have become due under the terms of the
charge, and the Plaintiff can only recover possession if the monies are due
under the deed of charge. Accordingly I must refuse the relief claimed.