Cleary v Stuart and Others

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date03 February 1941
Date03 February 1941
CourtSupreme Court

Supreme Court.

Cleary v. Stuart.
ELIZABETH CLEARY
Plaintiff
and
HORACE VILLIERS STUART AND OTHERS, Defendants(1)

Landlord and tenant - Rent Restriction Acts - Standard rent - "Application in the prescribed manner" to determine standard rent - Determination under par. (b) of sub-s. 1 of s. 2 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923 - Whether such determination retrospective - Standard rent "pending such application" - Lease of dwelling-house for99 years - Lessee holding in trust for occupier who covenanted to pay rent reserved by lease - Rent paid by occupier on 3rd August, 1914 - Whether rent reserved by lease the standard rent "pending such application" - Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923 (No. 19of 1923) s. 1 (a); s. 2, sub-s. 1 (a) and (b).

Case Stated by Maguire P. pursuant to s. 38, sub-s. 3, of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, at the request of both parties, for the determination of a question of law arising on the hearing of an appeal from the Circuit Court at Wicklow, on the 1st July, 1940.

The facts as set out in the Case Stated were as follows:—

"The plaintiff's claim in this action is for the sum of £86 12s. 9d., which the plaintiff claims as moneys paid to the defendants from the 25th March, 1924, to the 29th September, 1938, in excess of the rent legally recoverable by the defendants, in respect of premises known as 'Bowden Cottage,' Strand Road, Bray, in the County of Wicklow.

The said premises are held by the plaintiff as tenant to the defendants under lease, dated the 14th day of April, 1924, at the yearly rent of £6, and are subject to the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1923 to 1930.

The plaintiff claims that the standard rent of the premises within the meaning of the said Acts was throughout the material times the sum of 5d. a year. The Civil Bill and the defence herein are annexed to this case.

The following facts were proved or admitted:—

1. The said premises consisted of a two-roomed cottage and outside lavatory with small garden on the sea front at Bray, with a Poor Law Valuation of £2. The cottage is stone built and slate roofed, and is one of a number of cottages comprised in a lease, dated the 23rd day of March, 1825, made between George Putland of the first part, the several persons whose names are mentioned in the Schedule thereto annexed of the second part, and the Rev. Thomas Acton of the third part. The plaintiff's cottage is in the same structural condition as at the date of the said lease.

2. The defendants are the successors in title of the said George Putland and the owners of the Putland Estate.

3. The plaintiff has occupied said cottage from 1905, and from that date to the 25th March, 1924, paid to the defendants, or to their predecessors in title, the yearly sum of 5d. in respect of said cottage, which sum was accepted by the defendants or their predecessors as a sum payable by virtue of the provisions in the said lease, and ordinary rent receipts were given therefor.

4. The premises dealt with by the lease of the 23rd day of March, 1825, consisted of a group of small cottages, situated along the sea front of Bray, and now facing on, or adjacent to, the Esplanade. A number of these still remain in their original condition, but others have been improved, altered, or extended. In some cases the tenants purchased the landlord's interest, and substantial houses were built on the original premises.

5. Prior to the expiration of the term granted by the said lease of the 23rd March, 1825 (which expired on the 25th March, 1924), negotiations took place between Mr. McNulty, then agent for the defendants, and the occupiers of a number of the said cottages, including the plaintiff, represented by Messrs. Porter, Morris & Co., solicitors. As a result of these negotiations, a number of the occupiers, referred to as "5d. leaseholders," among them the plaintiff, signed proposals for new leases of their respective cottages, at rents varying from £6 a year to £14 a year, according to the respective values of the cottages, some of which had been enlarged and improved since 1825. The correspondence which took place during the negotiations is annexed hereto.

6. On the 14th April, 1924, the plaintiff was granted a lease of her said cottage for the term of 99 years from the 25th March, 1924, at the yearly rent of £6, pursuant to the proposal signed by her. Other occupiers were also granted leases for the same term in accordance with their respective proposals. The proposals of all occupiers and the leases to them were in the same form as the proposal of, and lease to, the plaintiff hereto annexed.

7. For the period from the 25th March, 1924, to the 29th September, 1939, the plaintiff paid to the defendants the sum of £87 in respect of the rent payable under the lease at £6 a year.

8. The first suggestion to the defendants that the rents payable under the said lease of 1924 were in excess of the rents permitted by the said Acts was contained in a letter from Mr. Brendan McCormack, solicitor, dated the 8th March, 1939, to Messrs. Darley, Orpen and McGillycuddy, solicitors for the defendants, hereto annexed.

9. On the 28th June, 1939, the defendants applied to the Circuit Court Judge at Wicklow, pursuant to the said Acts, for orders determining the 'standard rents' within the meaning of the said Acts, of the cottages occupied by the persons represented by Mr. Brendan McCormack, who claimed that they had been paying rent in excess of that legally demandable.

10. On the 14th September, 1939, the plaintiff issued the Civil Bill herein.

11. The said application of the defendants and the Civil Bill herein were heard by the Circuit Court Judge at Wicklow on the 23rd day of February, 1940.

At the hearing of the said application evidence was given on behalf of the present defendants that the standard rents were considerably in excess of the rents reserved by the respective leases, and thereupon counsel for the tenants (including the plaintiff) stated he proposed to call no evidence, and agreed that the standard rents of the respective cottages should be fixed at amounts not less than the respective rents reserved by the leases of 1924, and, accordingly, by consent of both parties, the standard rents of all the cottages in question were fixed by the learned Circuit Court Judge under s. 2, sub-s. 1 (b), of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, at the sums reserved by the respective leases.

The following documents were proved or admitted and copies thereof are annexed to this case:—[A list of these documents was set out.]

It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the standard rent of the said cottage within the meaning of the said Acts was the sum of 5d. per year up to the 28th June, 1939, and that the permitted increases were 1d., and that the defendants were only entitled to recover the yearly rent of 6d. during the period from 25th March, 1924, to the 29th September, 1938, and were bound to refund to the plaintiff the amount of rent paid during that period in excess of 6d. a year.

For the defendants it was contended:—1. That the yearly sum of 5d. paid to them by the plaintiff prior to March, 1924, was not a 'rent' within the meaning of the said Acts. 2. That the premises were not 'let' within the meaning of the said Acts prior to the 25th day of March, 1924. 3. That the standard rent of the premises was at all material times the sum of £6. 4. That, on the fixing of the standard rent by the Circuit Court Judge, such rent was retrospective so as to prevent the recovery of any sums previously paid when such sums were not in excess of the standard rent so fixed plus permitted increases.

The Circuit Court Judge having granted the plaintiff a decree for the sum of £86 12s. 9d. with costs, the defendants appealed to the High Court on Circuit. The appeal coming on for hearing before me at Wicklow on the 1st day of July, 1940, at the request of both parties, I adjourned the hearing for the determination of the question of law by the Supreme Court by way of Case Stated and I ordered that the plaintiff have carriage.

The question of law for the determination of the Supreme Court is:—

Is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendants the said sum of £86 12s. 9d., or any other sum, as overpaid rent, in respect of the said premises for the period from the 24th day of March, 1924, to the 29th September, 1938?"

The Case Stated was dated the 16th September, 1940.

Sect. 1 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, provides:—

"For the purposes of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires:—

(a) The expression 'standard rent' means the rent determined in manner hereinafter provided, which in the year ending the third day of August, 1914, the immediate landlord of an occupying tenant of the dwelling-house might reasonably have expected under any given contract of tenancy not being for more than a term of five years."

Sect. 2, sub-s. 1, provides:—

"The standard rent shall be determined in the following manner:—

(a) If the dwelling-house was on the third day of August, 1914, let to an occupying tenant under a contract of tenancy not being for more than a term of five years, then the rent at which the dwelling-house was so let, or, where the dwelling-house was not so let on that date, the rent at which it was last, within a period of three years, so let before that date, shall, subject to the deduction specified in the next succeeding sub-section, be the standard rent.

(b) In any case not coming within the provisions of the last preceding paragraph, the standard rent shall be determined by the Court on the application in the prescribed manner of the landlord or the tenant: Provided that, pending any such application to the Court, the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Kinsella v Byrne
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 21 February 1941
    ...Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, on the ground that, having regard to the decision in Cleary v. Stuart and OthersIR, [1941] I.R. 128, the rent referred to in the proviso must be a rent payable in respect of an existing dwelling-house, let as such to an occupying tenant; ......

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