Clayton v Mannion

 
FREE EXCERPT

1986 WJSC-CCA 317

CIRCUIT COURT APPEAL

CLAYTON v. MANNION
DAVID CLAYTON AND WILLIAM CLAYTON
.V.
MARTIN MANNION

Citations:

DEASY'S ACT 1860

LANDLORD & TENANT LAW AMDT ACT (IRL) 1860 - SEE DEASY'S ACT

WOODFALL LANDLORD & TENANT 25ED 369

Synopsis:

LANDLORD AND TENANT

Ejectment

Non-payment of rent - Demised premises - Stable yard and horse boxes with gallop facilities elsewhere - Tenancy agreement providing for payment of rent by banker's order to account of plaintiff landlord - Plaintiff countermanding method for payment of rent - Plaintiff preventing use of land for gallop facilities - Suspension of obligation of defendant tenant to pay rent - Failure of plaintiff to prove one year's rent in arrears - Judgment for defendant - (Ct. App. - O'Hanlon J. - 9/4/86)

|Clayton v. Mannion|

O'Hanlon J.
1

In this case I have come to the following conclusions upon a review of the oral evidence given in the cases:-

2

1. The premises were let by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant for a term of ten years from the 29th October, 1976, at a rent of £25 per week, by written agreement made the 29th October 1976. The premises, as described in that document, comprised a stable yard, two stallion boxes, "to be known as Yard M", paddock and gallop facilities. The agreed method of payment of rent was by banker's order to landlord's bank.

3

2. The Plaintiffs subsequently prejudiced their legal position vis-à-vis the Defendant by two actions taken by them. I am satisfied that in or about the year 1978, when abortive ejectment proceedings were brought against the Defendant, the Plaintiffs instructed their bank to send back instalments of rent paid by bankers' order, as it was apprehended that acceptance of rent at that time might operate as a bar to the ejectment proceedings, and I have no evidence that that direction was ever countermanded or that notice was given to the Defendant that he should resume payment of rent in the agreed manner. Secondly, it is accepted by the Plaintiffs that the gallop facilities which formed an important part of the original letting, were cut off by the Plaintiffs in or about the year 1978. The field was kept locked for some months, and a considerable part of the gallop area was ploughed up and crops were sown which rendered it unusable for the intended purpose. The Plaintiffs explain this action...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL