Condon v Mitchelstown Rural District Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ross, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 December 1913
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Date: 18 December 1913

Condon

and

Mitchelstown Rural District Council.

Ross, J.

Appeal.

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.

1914.

Local Government — Labourers (Ireland) Acts — Improvement scheme founded on representation on behalf of agricultural labourer — Right of such labourer to preference on first letting of particular cottage — Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 37), s. 29.

Held by the Court of Appeal (affirming the decision of Ross, J.), that the plaintiff, assuming that he had a right of preference to some one of the cottages included in the scheme, was not entitled to a preferential right to a particular cottage, or to one of the particular cottages erected on the townland specified in the representation signed by him.

Trial of Action.

The defendants had framed an improvement scheme (subsequently duly confirmed) under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, to acquire certain plots of land, and build cottages thereon. The plaintiff was an agricultural labourer, and one of the representations on which the scheme was founded was made on his behalf.

This representation was as follows:—

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS, 1883 To 1906.

Representation.

(Cottages to be built in substitution for insanitary dwellings.)

Mitchelstown Rural District No. 1.

Mitchelstown District Electoral Division.

We the undersigned, being agricultural labourers or ratepayers, represent that the under-mentioned labourers are living in houses which are unfit for human habitation, and should be provided with suitable house-accommodation, and that it is the duty of the district council to take proceedings under the Labourers Acts for the making of an improvement scheme in respect of the above-named electoral division.

We suggest that cottages should be built in lieu of these dwellings on the holdings named in the Schedule set out below, and that suitable plots should be attached thereto.

Signatures.	Addresses.
1. James Finn,	Mitchelstown.
2. Patrick Russell,	”
3. William Roche,	”

Schedule.

Name of Labourer.	Address.	Occupiers where sites are proposed.	Townland.
Maurice Condon.	Mitchelstown.	Countess of Kingston.	Ballinwillin.

The defendants acquired, under the scheme, a plot of land in the townland of Ballinwillin, in the occupation of the Countess of Kingston, containing 1a. 1r. 28p. (described as plot No. 41), upon which they built ten cottages. They also under the same scheme acquired a plot of land in the adjoining townland of Brigown, in respect of which a representation had been lodged in Form 1 of the Forms in the Schedule to the Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1906, suggesting the building of a cottage thereon for an agricultural labourer named Michael Doolan.

Regulations had been made by the defendants pursuant to sect. 29 of the Labourers Act, 1906, in the form suggested by the Local Government Board (see Bolton's Labourers Acts, vol. ii, p. 233), and had been confirmed by the Local Government Board on December 14th, 1910. The second of these regulations provided that on the first letting of any cottages or allotments comprised in the scheme, preference should be given to agricultural labourers who had signed on their own behalf the representation on which the scheme was founded, or on whose behalf that representation was made, unless the applicant had in the meantime ceased to be an agricultural labourer.

The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleged that the defendants had acquired a plot of land in respect of which his representation was made, and erected a cottage thereon, and claimed that he was, by virtue of the said representation, and the provisions of sect 29, sub-s. 2, of the Labourers Act, 1906, entitled to be preferred as tenant by the defendants on the first letting of “the said plot and cottage,” and to be put into possession thereof as tenant to the defendants; that the defendants neglected and refused to put plaintiff in possession of the said plot of land and cottage as such tenant, and let the same to one Michael Doolan, by whom no representation was made in respect of the said plot and cottage. The plaintiff claimed: (a) a declaration that he was entitled to be preferred as tenant on the first letting of the said plot and cottage, and to be given possession; (b) an injunction to restrain the defendants from letting or continuing to let said plot and cottage to any person other than the plaintiff; (c) an injunction to compel defendants to put the plaintiff into possession of said plot and cottage as tenant to defendants; and (d) damages.

The defendants by their defence pleaded that they had made a scheme under the Labourers Acts, and...