Bargaintown Ltd v Dublin Corporation
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Morris |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1993 |
| Neutral Citation | 1993 WJSC-HC 1534 |
| Docket Number | No. 319 J.R./1992 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 28 June 1993 |
BETWEEN
AND
AND
1993 WJSC-HC 1534
THE HIGH COURT
Words & Phrases:
CF
Subject Headings:
PRACTICE: parties
Citations:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRL) ACT 1840 S140
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRL) ACT 1840 S141
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRL) ACT 1840 S139
HOLOHAN V FRIENDS PROVIDENT & CENTURY LIFE OFFICE 1966 IR 1
CAHILL V SHANNON 1980 IR 269
DUGGAN V AN TAOISEACH 1989 ILRM 710
SHEEHAN, STATE V GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 1987 IR 550
Judgment of Mr. Justice Morris delivered the 28th day of June 1993.
The Applicant is a limited company and is the occupier of premises No. 4 Queen's Street in the City of Dublin. It holds the premises under a lease dated the 1st of April, 1982 from William Foster (the Notice Party) for a term of 9 ¼ years from the 1st of June, 1979. The Respondent is the fee simple owner of the premises. The Notice Party holds the premises from the Respondents by virtue of a lease dated the 11th of November, 1968 and made between the Respondents of the one part and John Hayes of the other part for a term of 21 years from the 29th September, 1967. The lessee's interest in the premises was assigned to the Notice Party on the 15th of May, 1969.
The premises comprise a lock-up shop and the Applicant was desirous of acquiring the fee simple in the premises and accordingly instructed his Solicitors to write a series of letters to the Respondents indicating that it was prepared to enter into negotiations for the acquisition of the fee simple. No agreement was reached between the parties. On the 29th of September, 1988 the Notice Party's lease expired and he served the appropriate notices under the Landlord and Tenant Acts, 1967/ 1989seeking a Section 30 reversionary lease in the premises. On the 28th of September, 1992 the Respondents" Principal Officer wrote to the Applicant's Solicitors stating that the Corporation is in the process of disposing of the fee simple in the premises to the Notice Party and in those circumstances was not in a position to grant the Applicant a lease in the premises. The Respondents had already on the 10th of July, 1989 advised the Applicant's Solicitors that they were not agreeable to dispose of the fee simple interest in the property to the Applicant, notwithstanding being informed that the Applicant was interested in the acquisition of the property and notwithstanding the fact that they had been told that the Applicant "would be extremely disappointed if there was to be a disposal without reference to our clients".
The Notice Party's Motion seeking a reversionary lease was due to be heard by the Circuit Court on the 3rd of July, 1992. Negotiations were entered into between the Notice Party and the Corporation and as a result an agreement was reached whereby the Corporation agreed to sell the fee simple of the property to the Third Party for a figure of £45,000.
On these facts and on the arguments advanced the Applicant seeks an Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Respondents to sell the freehold to the Notice Party, an Order preventing the Respondents from completing the sale, a Declaration that the Respondents, as agents or trustees for the ratepayers, are bound to seek a fair market price and they seek an Order that the Respondents be precluded from acting in a manner which is unfairly discriminatory between prospective purchasers of the property.
The arguments which have been advanced by Counsel for the Applicant can be grouped under the following headings:-
(a) It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that since the premises in question comprise part of the lands known as the "City Estate" they were acquired by the Corporation in circumstances in which the Corporation would be precluded from selling them by the provisions of Section 140 of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1840 and, accordingly, the Court should intervene to prevent the sale.
It may be convenient to deal with this point at this stage as I am satisfied that Section 141 of the 1840 Act empowers the Corporation to sell such lands with the sanction of the Minister for the Environment. I am satisfied that at the time when the Corporation became aware of the fact that an application for Judicial Review was being made, the appropriate steps were already in hand to make a submission to the Minister for the Environment for his approval and sanction.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that this is not a valid point and the Corporation is empowered, with the Ministerial sanction, to complete the sale.
(b) The second and central point upon which this application is based can be summarized as follows. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that the Corporation holds its land, and particularly the property in question, as a trustee for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City of Dublin and the Applicant points to Section 139 of the Act of 1840 in support of this proposition. That being so, it is submitted that on the sale of the land there is an obligation upon the Corporation to achieve the highest possible purchase price. It is the Applicant's submission that in the circumstances of this sale the Corporation stands in the same position as the Defendant in Holohan v. Friends Provident and Century Life Office 1966 Irish Reports page 1 and that the test outlined by O'Dalaigh C.J. in that case is the test to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial