Casey and Others v Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 March 1937
• Date: 04 March 1937
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Casey and Others v. Irish Sallors and Soldiers Land Trust.

BRIDGET CASEY

Plaintiff

and

THE IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST

Defendants.

MICHAEL DUGGAN

Plaintiff

and

SAME DEFENDANTS

JOSEPH CAPRANI

Plaintiff

and

SAME DEFENDANTS

and

HUGH CALLAN

Plaintiff

and

SAME DEFENDANTSand JOSEPH McCANN (1)

Supreme Court.

Local Government - Housing - Cottages for men who served with the British Forces in the Great War - Cottages erected and let by the Local Government Board - Cottages subsequently transferred to "The Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust" - Additional Cottages erected and let by the said Trust - Effect of decision of Supreme Court that occupants of cottages not bound to pay rent therefor - Invalidity of letting agreements - Nature of occupancy - Recovery of sums paid to the Local Government Board and to Trust as rent - Estoppel - Recovery of possession by occupants of cottages evicted for non-payment of rent - Labourers (Ir.) Act, 1883, sects.12 and 13 - Labourers (Ir.) Act, 1906, sect. 29 - Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, sect. 4 - Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922, Session 2, sect. 3 - Land Trust Powers Act, 1923, sect. 1.

By sect. 4 of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, the Local Government Board for Ireland were given power to make and carry out schemes for the provision of cottages with or without plots for the accommodation of men who had served in any of His Majesty's forces in satisfied the Board as to their fitness and suitability, and, for the purpose the Great War (hereinafter referred to as "ex-service men") and who of carrying out any scheme when confirmed by the Board, the Act provided that the Board, in addition to their own powers, should have and might exercise all the powers (except that of borrowing or levying a rate) that might be exercised by a rural district council under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, for the purpose of carrying out an improvement scheme when confirmed by a final order under sect. 6 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, including powers of acquiring lands by agreement or compulsorily.

Pursuant to sect. 3 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922 (Session 2) (13 Geo. 5, c. 2), and the Land Trust Powers Act, 1923 (No. 25 of 1923), a body corporate by the name of "The Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust" (therein referred to as "the Trust") was established, and by the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust (Transfer of Land) Order, 1924, made by the Minister for Local Government of the Irish Free State pursuant to the said Land Trust Powers Act, 1923, all land, property, or right acquired by the Local Government Board for Ireland under the said Act of 1919, were transferred to the said Trust. The Board, and subsequently the Trust, erected a large number of cottages and let them to ex-service men, those erected by the Board being subsequently transferred to the Trust by sealed Order, dated 7th February, 1924.

On the 29th July, 1933, the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State decided in an action brought by a number of ex-service men against the Trust (Leggett and Others v. Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust—not

reported) that the plaintiffs in that action were not bound to pay any rent in respect of the several cottages and plots occupied by them.

Following this decision four actions (as test actions) were brought in the High Court by ex-service men or their representatives in respect of four of these cottages and in respect of the sums paid by them as rent:—

1. B. C.'s Case. By an agreement in writing, dated 2nd November, 1926, and made between the Trust and E. O'S., the Trust let one of the cottages built by them to E. O'S. at a weekly rent of 5s. E. O'S. paid the said rent up to the date of his death (30th June, 1928) and subsequently his widow and personal representative, B. C., the plaintiff, paid it until the 1st December, 1928. On 26th February, 1929, the Trust obtained a decree for possession of the cottage for overholding in the District Court, and on 17th March, 1929, the decree was executed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action against the Trust claiming a declaration that the said agreement was void, and that all moneys paid as rent were held by the Trust in trust for the plaintiff or as money paid and received for her use, and for an account of the moneys due to the plaintiff by the Trust, and for an order for the payment of the amount found due.

It had been held by Meredith J. (reported [1936] I. R. 292) that, as the case was one of a cestui que trust, as such, demanding money back from trustees as a debt, the action of the plaintiff against the Trust for any money in their hands was unsustainable, and accordingly the money could not be recovered as a debt from the Trust, whatever other claim there might be in an action properly constituted.

Pardoe v. Price, 16 M. & W. 451, and Edwards v. Lowndes I. E. & B. 81, applied.

2. M. D.'s Case. By an agreement in writing, dated 19th April, 1923, and made between M. D. and the Local Government Board for Ireland, the Board let one of the cottages erected by them to M. D. at a weekly rent of 5s., which M. D. paid until 1927. This cottage was subsequently transferred by the Board to the Trust. In 1928, the rent being in arrear, the Trust served notice to quit on M. D. and, possession not being given up, they brought ejectment proceedings in the District Court and obtained an order for possession on 12th July, 1928. The plaintiff brought an action claiming similar relief to that claimed by B. C. (supra) and also claiming a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to be relieved from the agreement of the 19th day of April, 1923, or alternatively, a declaration that the said agreement in so far as it conflicted with the order of the Supreme Court in Leggett and Others v. The Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust (not reported) was of no effect and should be rectified; and a declaration that the notice to quit and the decree of the District Court were void; and that the eviction of the plaintiff by the Trust was a breach of their statutory duty; and an inquiry as to the damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the said decree and ejectment, and an order for the payment of the amount found due.

It had been held by Meredith J. that the letting was valid and binding on the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could not recover any money paid as rent to the Local Government Board; that, for the reasons stated in B. C.'s Case (supra) the sums paid by way of rent to the Trust were irrecoverable; and that for the reasons stated in H. C.'s Case (infra) the plaintiff was only a tenant at will of the cottage and therefore could not recover in respect of the claim for being put out of possession.

3. J. C.'s Case. In this case the plaintiff, J. C., was at the date of action brought still in possession of the cottage under an agreement, dated 24th December, 1926, and made between the Trust and him, no notice to quit having been served. He claimed in his action against the Trust a declaration that the said agreement was not binding, and a return of the money paid as rent, and ancillary relief. The Trust contended that as the plaintiff still retained possession of the cottage and had paid rent under the said agreement he could not dispute the validity of the agreement.

It had been held by Meredith J. that a declaration that the agreement was not binding should be made, but that, for the reasons stated in B. C.'s Case (supra), the money paid by the plaintiff as rent could not be recovered by him.

4. H. C.'s Case. In this case the cottage was one of those erected and let by the Local Government Board and subsequently transferred to the Trust under the said sealed Order of 7th February, 1924. H. C.'s agreement dated 28th July, 1923, bore an endorsement dated 10th September, 1924, stating that the Trust ratified and confirmed the terms of the agreement. In 1925 H. C. was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for certain crimes. His wife, however, remained in the cottage and paid the rent for a while and it then fell into arrear, and the Trust served notice to quit. Possession not having been given up, the Trust took proceedings and recovered possession on 7th January, 1927. The Trust then let the cottage to another ex-service man, J. McC., who was made a defendant with the Trust in the action which H. C. brought. In this action H. C. claimed a declaration that the Trust were trustees of the premises in question for the plaintiff, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, or, alternatively, for the plaintiff and his wife for their lives and the survivor of them without any obligation by way of rent or otherwise; and that the instrument, dated the 28th of July, 1923, was illegal and void, or, alternatively, that by reason of their fiduciary relationship to the plaintiff the Trust were estopped from relying on the said instrument as a document creating the relationship of landlord and tenant.

It had been held by Meredith J. that the effect of the ratification by the Trust of the letting made by the Local Government Board was to put the plaintiff in the position of a qualified ex-service man selected by the Trust for the cottage and garden in question.

And Meredith J. had further held that a qualified ex-service man let into possession of a particular cottage by the Trust in performance of their duty to use the cottages for the accommodation of qualified ex-service men became no more than a tenant at will.

All four plaintiffs appealed from these decisions of Meredith J. to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court:—

1. that the Trust was not entitled to charge rents to meet the cost of maintenance and organisation;

2. that the Trust was a public eleemosynary corporation, and that the ex-service men had no estate in the land, equitable or otherwise, but were put into occupation at...