Bryan and Others v Irish Land Commission and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1942
• Date: 20 November 1942
• Court: High Court

In re Loftus Bryan's Estate.

LOFTUS ANTHONY BRYAN, LOUISA PLUNKET TITTLE-HAMILTON and DANIEL FOLEY

Plaintiffs

and

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION and, by order, DENIS McMAHON, JEREMIAH CURTINand MICHAEL CARMODY

Defendants.

Land Acts - Land Commission - Jurisdiction - Particulars of rents of judicial and non-judicial tenancies furnished by owners - Fixation of standard purchase annuities of judicial tenancies under Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923),Sch. I, Part I, and of non-judicial tenancies under Sch. 1, Part II, par. 1 - Time within which agreements fixing standard purchase annuities of non-judicial tenancies must be lodged with Land Commission - Publication of vesting order - Land Act, 1931 (No. 11 of 1931), sects. 9and 12 - Rents in vesting order lower than those furnished in particulars by owners - Objection lodged to Lay Commissioners - Appeal to Appeal Tribunal - Objection struck out - Action for declaration that vesting order invalid, and injunction to compel publication by Land Commission of amended vesting order - Jurisdiction of High Court in relation to Land Commission - Constitution of Éire éire, Art. 34 - Land Law Act, 1881 (44 ‡ 45Vict. c. 49), s. 48, sub.-s. 1.

Witness Action.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the Land Commission claiming a declaration that certain lists of vested holdings in Co. Clare and Co. Cork, of which the plaintiffs were owners, which had been published by the Land Commission in Iris Oifigiúil, were invalid and ultra viresthe powers of the Land Commission under the Land Acts, 1923-1936, and they also claimed an injunction restraining the Land Commission from publishing vesting orders under s. 12 of the Land Act, 1931 (No. 11 of 1931) until lists of the vested holdings based on particulars as to rents furnished by the plaintiffs had been published by the Land Commission.

On the passing of the Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923) the lands in question were occupied by seven judicial tenants and nineteen yearly tenants, and in accordance with s. 40, sub-s. 1, of that Act, the plaintiffs had furnished the Land Commission with returns of the names of the tenants and particulars of each tenancy.

On the 18th September, 1931, the Land Commission published in Iris Oifigiúil a list of the plaintiffs' lands in Co. Clare which became vested in the Land Commission on the 1st May, 1931, the appointed day. A similar list of the plaintiffs' lands in Co. Cork was published on the 9th October, 1931, these lands became vested in the Land Commission on the 1st November, 1931, the appointed day.

The plaintiffs objected to both the said lists as published on the grounds that the several rents set out therein as payable to the plaintiffs by the tenants were not the true rents, and that the Land Commission had no jurisdiction to reduce the amount of the rents as set forth in the returns furnished by the plaintiffs.

On the 2nd July, 1937, the Lay Commissioners disallowed the said objections, whereupon the plaintiffs appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, which subsequently struck out the plaintiffs' objections without prejudice to any other proceedings that might be taken to test the validity of the list of vested holdings as published. The plaintiffs then commenced the present proceedings against the Land Commission.

The rents of the seven judicial tenancies had been fixed before 16th August, 1911, and the plaintiffs contended that the standard purchase annuities of these tenancies should be fixed at sixty-five per cent. of the judicial rent in accordance with Part I of Schedule I of the Land Act, 1923.

Sixteen of the yearly tenants had agreed on the amount of their standard purchase annuities with the plaintiffs who claimed that the sums agreed upon were the standard purchase annuities for the said holdings pursuant to par. 1 (a)of Part II of Schedule I of the Land Act, 1923. The said agreements had been lodged with the Land Commission on 22nd June, 1925. The plaintiffs claimed that the standard purchase annuities of the remaining yearly tenants should be fixed at sixty-five per cent. of the rent of each holding under the Land Act, 1929 (No. 31 of 1929), s. 2, sub-s. 1.

In their defence, the Land Commission admitted the facts, but denied that the standard purchase annuities of the seven judicial tenancies should be determined at sixty-five per cent. of the judicial rents. They claimed that the judicial rents originally fixed had been since reduced, and therefore the standard purchase annuities should be fixed on the abated rents.

With regard to the yearly tenants who had entered into agreements with the plaintiffs as to the amounts of their standard purchase annuities, the Land Commission denied that the said agreements were entered into pursuant to par. 1 of Part II of Schedule I of the Land Act, 1923, or the rules made thereunder, and denied that the said amounts were the proper standard purchase annuities, or that the said agreements were duly lodged with the Land Commission. They further pleaded that the said agreements had been waived and abandoned by the plaintiffs, and by agreement between the plaintiffs and the Land Commission were disregarded in the fixation of the standard purchase annuities. They also pleaded that the said agreements were not lodged with the Land Commission pursuant to the statutory rules relating to such agreements. They also denied that the rents set forth in the said lists of lands were reduced rents and were not the true rents furnished by the said owners. They alleged that the proceedings were irregular and premature by reason of the existence of special statutory provisions and statutory jurisdictions in other tribunals for the redress of the matters complained of; in particular, they referred to the provisions of the Land Act, 1923, as to the ascertainment of the rent of a holding, and to the provisions of the Land Act, 1931, as to the amendment of lists of vested holdings and vesting orders.

The Land Commission also relied on an order of the Judicial Commissioner made on 25th April, 1924, in the matter of the estate of Susanna McCraith and others, owners, and Mrs. George Ryan, representatives of George Ryan, tenant, whereby it was declared that the true rent of that particular holding was £55 13s. 0d. That holding was part of the lands in question in the present proceedings, and the Land Commission said that that order was made in a test case by agreement with the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title, and that it created an estoppel to the present proceedings. Finally, the Land Commission contended that the Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 49), s. 48, deprived the High Court of jurisdiction to give relief in respect of the matters complained of.

During the trial, Denis Mcmahon, Jeremiah Curtin and Michael Carmody were joined as defendants by order of the Court for the reasons hereinafter set forth in the judgment of the Court. The said defendants were not represented and did not appear at the trial.

The Land Commission published a list of holdings (including the holding of the defendant, M. C.) on the estate of the plaintiffs, in Co. Clare, they also published a list of holdings (including those of the defendants, D. McM. and J. C.) on the estate of the plaintiffs, in Co. Cork, which on the appointed day became vested in the Land Commission. The plaintiffs alleged that the standard purchase annuities shown in the list of vested holdings were, in the case of the said three defendants, erroneous and too low; the plaintiffs lodged objections to the lists but these were disallowed by the Lay Commissioners, and, on appeal therefrom to the Appeal Tribunal the objections were struck out without prejudice to any other proceedings that might be taken to test the validity of the lists of vested holdings; the plaintiffs thereupon brought an action in the High Court against the Land Commission and the three other said defendants for a declaration that the lists of vested holdings were invalid and ultra vires the powers of the Land Commission and also for an injunction to restrain the Land Commission from publishing vesting orders under s. 12 of the Land Act, 1931, until lists of the vested holdings based on particulars as to rents furnished by the plaintiffs had been published.

In the case of the defendant, D. McM., a judicial tenant, the plaintiffs, relying on s. 25, sub-s. 1, and Part I of the First Schedule of the Land Act, 1923, claimed that the standard purchase annuity must be based on the judicial rent, fixed before 16th August, 1911, and not on an abated rent shown by the Land Commission; in the cage of the defendant, M. C., a yearly tenant, the plaintiffs, relying on s. 2, sub-s. 1, of the Land Act, 1929, claimed that the...