Byrne v City of Dublin Steam Packet Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 April 1883
• Date: 12 April 1883
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

Appeal.

BYRNE

and

CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY

Allan v. Overseer of LiverpoolELR L. R. 9 Q. B. 180.

Cory v. BristowELR 2 APP. Cas. 276.

Inman v. Kirkdale Ibid.

Inman v. KirkdaleELR L. R. 9 Q. B. 180.

Allan v. LiverpoolELR L. R. 9 Q. B. 180.

Cory v. BristowELR 2 App. Cas. 262.

Watkins v. Overseers of Millton next GravesendELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 350.

Allan v. Liverpool Ibid.

Cory v. BristowELR L. R. 10 C. P. 514.

Forrest v. Overseers of GreenwichENR 8 El. & Bl. 897.

Watkins v. the Overseers of Milton next GravesendELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 350.

COry v. The Churchwardens of GreenwichELR L. R. 7 C. P. 499.

White's CaseENR 2 Dyer, 158, b.

Allan v. LiverpoolELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 184.

Rex v. BellENR 7 T. R. 601.

Kittow v. Liskeard UnionELR L. R. 10 Q. B. 7.

Rates Occupation Shed erected by Port and Docks Board for exclusive use of Steam Packet Company 1 & 2 Vict. c. 56, s. 124 Immediate use or enjoyment of land.

220 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Q. B. Div. LAwsoN, J. :- 1883. We think that the Plaintiffs must pay these costs. Suppose . HANBITRY that the only question in this action was for the temporary stoppage V UPPER INNT of the mill, the Plaintiffs would have to pay all the costs, both DRAINAGE noun. those of the Drainage Board and also of Mr. Dixon. In my opinion, it cannot be too strongly laid down that the Courts have the most complete power over the costs, as was formerly the case in Courts of Equity, and that it would be a very bad principle to in any way limit that power. JOHNSON, j., concurred. Solicitors for the Plaintiffs : Barlow Orr. Solicitor for the Defendants : Mooney. Solicitors for. Mr. Dixon : Stanuell 8r Co. Ex. Div. BYRNE CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET 1880. COMPANY. Dec. 10, 13, 21. Appeal. 1881. Feb. 15, 16. July 1. H. L. 1883. April 9, 10, 12. Bates-Occupation-Shed erected by Port and Docks Board for exclusive use of Steam Packet Company-1 4. 2 Vict. C. 56, s. 124-Immediate use or enjoyment of land. The Port and Docks Board, in whom the care, management and superintendÂÂence of the port of Dublin is vested by the 32 & 33 Vict. c. c. are empowered by that Act to erect upon the quays closed or unclosed sheds for the acÂÂcommodation of goods about to be shipped or after being landed. The Dublin Steam Packet Company, who are largely engaged in cross-channel traffic, had for many years prior to 1873 occupied certain berths along one of the quay walls allocated by the Port and Docks Board for the use of the ComÂÂpany's vessels. In 1873 the Port and. Docks Board. gave the Company notice that the Board were prepared to erect, free of cost, at berths allocated to fixed. lines of steamers, for their exclusive use, closed sheds, according to a standard plan ; any outlay over and above such plan to be borne by the parties for whom such outlay was made ; such parties, however, giving an undertaking that they did not claim any vested rights in the shed, or right to compensation for disÂÂturbance, or on surrender. The D. Company gave the required undertaking, and a closed shed. was erected. for them. The shed was not used as a store, but VOL. XII.} Q. B., C. P., & EL DIVISIONS. as a place for the deposit of goods when about being shipped, or after landing. Goods occasionally remained for a day in the shed, but not longer. The shed was locked at night by the Company's servants, and the key kept by one of the Company's officers. In pursuance of a request by the Board, the D. Company insured the shed for its value, and kept up the insurance ; but the Company. paid no rent, nor were they charged higher dues for use of the shed, and they did not charge storage for goods in the shed. Held, by the Exchequer Division (the Court having power to draw inferÂÂences of fact), that the Company did not occupy the shed so as to render them liable to municipal rates under 12 & 13 Vict. o. 91. In the Court of Appeal, Held, by LORD O'Hie and FITZ GIBBON LI., that the judgment of the Exchequer Division should be affirmed ; diss., C. J., and DEASY, L. J. Upon appeal to the House of Lords, the judgment of the Court of Appeal (affirming the Exchequer Division) was affirmed. ACTION by the Plaintiff, as Collector-General of Rates for the City of Dublin, under the 12 & 13 Vict. o. 91, to recover from the Defendants 456 7s. ld. for municipal rates for the years 1876-1879, claimed to be due by the Defendants, as occupiers of a certain warehouse or shed situate at the North Wall, Dublin, and alleged to be used by the Defendants for the purposes of their cross-channel traffic. The Defendants traversed their occupation of the premises in question; and on this, issue was joined. The case was tried op. the 8th June, 1880, before MR. JUSTICE FITZGERALD, when the folÂÂlowing was the substance of the evidence given, there being pracÂÂtically no dispute as to the facts. Prior to November, 1873, the Port and. Docks Board had allocated. to the use of the Defendants certain berths on the North Wall quay, which were used by the Defendants in loading and discharging their steamers. On the 15th November, 1873, the secretary. of the Port and Docks Board adÂÂdressed to the Defendants' secretary the following letter :--- " PORT AND DOCKS OFFICE, DUELER, gg 15th November, 1873. " &A-The Dublin Port and Docks Board having had under, consideration the subject of providing shed accommodation for the trade of the port, I am directed to acquaint you, for the information of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, that the Board have adopted a standard plan of closed shed (section herewith), which they will be prepared to erect, free of cost, at such berths as may be allocated to fixed lines of Steam Packet Companies, for their VOL. XII. LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. ft. I. exclusive use. Any additional outlay required over and above such plan shall be paid for on completion of the work by the parties for whom such outlay was made ; and that parties making such payment shall give an undertaking that they do not thereby acquire, or seek for, any vested right in such sheds, or for compenÂÂsation for disturbance, or on the occasion of a voluntary surrender. Where circumstances will justify the expenditure, the Board will likewise be prepared to erect an unclosed shed, such as will afford protection from, weather during the temporary discharge of cargo, under the same conditions as above. " I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, " N. PROUD, Secretary." In reply, the Defendants' secretary wrote :- " CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY, " 15, EDEN-QUAY, DUBLIN. " 21st November, 1873. Sra,-Having read at the meeting of the Board of Directors your letter of 15th inst., in reference to the shed accommodation to be provided at the berths allocated for the use of this Company, I am desired to say, in reply, that the Directors agree to pay the cost which may be incurred at their request, beyond the cost necessary for the construction of sheds in accordance with the plan enclosed in your letter ; and the Directors give the undertaking, as required, that they do not thereby acquire or seek for a vested right in such sheds, or for compensation for disturbance, or on the occasion of a voluntary surrender. " I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, " P. HOWELL, Secretary." The shed in respect of which rates were now claimed was shortly afterwards erected. The only question raised at the trial was whether the Defendants were occupiers of the shed so as to render them liable to rates. Upon this question Mr. William Watson, one of the managing Directors of the defendant Company, was examined by the Plaintiff. His evidence was to the following effect. The shed was erected for the Defendants, and was a closed shed, between 800 and 900 feet in length, and 27 feet wide. There were locks on the door, and the keys were in the possession of the officers of the defendant Company. The shed was used to cover the quay while goods were being shipped and landed. It was not used as a store, but goods were merely deposited in it and shipped at7once ; and when goods were landed they might be removed that day or the next, but onlysuch goods were left in the .VoL. XII.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. shed after landing as would remain on an open quay. Goods brought to the shed for shipment were brought down and deÂÂposited by the public in waggons or carts. The Defendants had a booking-office or hut in the shed, and some goods were paid for in such hut. No goods were allowed into the shed except goods about being shipped by the Defendants' steamers. Goods are shipped on board the Defendants' steamers by their servants. When a steamer is discharging, the heavy goods are deposited in the shed and the fine goods are tricked across the street into stores of the Defendants until removed by the owners. It sometimes happened that heavy goods are not removed from the shed for a day or so after they come in. Goods left in the shed for shipÂÂment occasionally might remain for a day, but never more. The shed was locked at night by the Defendants' servants, and the keys deposited with an officer of the Defendants selected for the purpose. The exclusive use of the shed was allocated to the Defendants by the Port and Docks Board, and they had exclusive use of it since the date of Mr. Proud's letter. The erection of the shed began in 1873. It was built in sections, the Defendants getting the use of each section as finished. It was completed in 1876. The DeÂÂfendants found it useful and beneficial for the working of their traffic, as it covers the quays, and protects both goods and workÂÂmen from the weather. The sheds were entirely built by and at the expense of the Port and Docks Board, who have entire control over the quays. They were repaired by the Board, and the DeÂÂfendants paid no rent for them. The Port and Docks Board have authority, through the harbour-master, to assign a berth for each vessel, but for convenience they assign a particular berth to large Companies like the...