Captain C. J. Coote and Others, Landlords; Thomas Walsh, Tenant

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeLand Com.
Judgment Date24 June 1905
CourtLand Commission (Ireland)
Date24 June 1905
Captain C. J. Coote and Others,
Landlords;
Thomas Walsh,
Tenant (1).

Land Com.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1906.

Landlord and tenant — Fair rent — Declaration and agreement — Filing of — Purchase agreement — Bona fide transaction.

Held, that in the circumstances of the case the application should be granted.

Held, also, that in the event of a purchase agreement being afterwards entered into, the fact of the application having been granted did not necessarily involve that the Estates Commissioners would not be at liberty, before taking action in the matter, to satisfy themselves that the entire transaction was a bona fide transaction.

Application to file a declaration and agreement fixing the fair rent of a holding. The circumstances under which the application was made appear sufficiently from the judgment.

W. M. Jellett, K.C., for the landlords, in support of the application.

Cur. adv. vult.

An originating notice of an application to fix the fair rent of a holding was signed, and a declaration and agreement fixing the fair rent was entered into by a landlord and a tenant on a certain day. Subsequently, on the same day, a document purporting to be a purchase agreement was signed by the tenant alone. On an application to file the declaration and agreement:—

Meredith, J.:—

The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The holding consists of 16a. 7r. 2p. held at a rent of £1. On December 22, 1904, the landlord, by his agent, and the tenant, in person, signed an originating notice to fix a fair rent in respect of it. The existing tenancy was an ordinary tenancy from year to year, not a judicial tenancy. On the same day a consent was entered into that the fair rent of the holding should be fixed at the sum of 18s. The signature of the tenant was properly witnessed, as provided

by the Rules. On the same day, but after these documents were signed, a purchase agreement, in the usual form, was signed by the tenant. The question, so far as the Court is concerned, is whether the fact of the purchase agreement having been signed by the tenant justifies the Court in refusing to make the consent entered into by both parties, according to the ordinary rules and practice, a rule of Court. I am of opinion, and my colleague agrees with me, that these cases should be decided on their particular facts. Now, the document...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT