Curneen, Tenant; Tottenham, Landlord

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 January 1896
• Date: 29 January 1896
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Curneen

Tenant

and

Tottenham

Landlord (1).

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1896.

Landlord and tenant — Notice by tenant of intention to sell tenancy — Election by landlord to purchase — True Value — Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 49 s. 1 (3)).

The true value of a tenancy within the meaning of sect. 1, sub-sect. 3, of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 49), is not restricted to the value of the improvements on the holding made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, for which he has not been paid or compensated by the landlord. The principles expressed by Mr. Trench, Q.C., in Ager v. Sealy (27 Irish Law Times, 63) approved and adopted.

Case stated by the Land Commission.

The holding contained twenty-two statute acres, and was held under a tenancy from year to year at a judicial rent of £4 15s. which was fixed in 1884. The tenant having served notice on the landlord of his intention to sell the tenancy the landlord claimed to exercise the right of pre-emption given to him by section 1 of the Land Law Act, 1881, and having disagreed with the tenant as to the price served an originating notice to have the true value of the tenancy ascertained by the Land Commission. The Sub-Commission, before whom the case came for hearing, by an order dated the 24th July, 1895, fixed the true value at the sum of £30. The landlord having served notice for a rehearing the case was reheard before the Land Commission at Enniskillen on the 24th October, 1895; there was no appearance for the tenant who had gone to America

The holding was a mountain holding used only for grazing, and the tenant did not reside on the holding; there were no buildings on it, and no improvements had been made by the tenant or his predecessors in title. The landlord contended that the true value of a tenancy within the meaning of the 1st section of the Land Law Act, 1881, was to be measured by the value of

the tenant's improvements for which he had not been paid or otherwise compensated by the landlord, and as no such improvements were shown to exist in this case it was urged that the true value should be fixed at a nominal or small sum. The Land Commission being of opinion that what the tenant was selling, and the landlord was buying, was not merely the tenant's interest in any improvements made by him or his predecessors in title, but the tenancy itself with all such rights as are given to the tenant of a present tenancy by the Land Act of 1870 and the Land Law Act, 1881 (1), fixed the true value at £30. On the application of the landlord they stated a case for the decision of the Court of Appeal, and the question was:—

Is the true value of a tenancy within the meaning of the 1st section of the Land Law Act, 1881, restricted to the value of the improvements on a holding made by the tenants or his predecessors in title for which he has not been paid or otherwise compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title?

Cherry (with him R. E. Meredith, Q.C.), for the landlord:—

The “true” value in sect. 1, sub-sect. 3 of the Act of 1881 must either mean the value of the improvements effected by the tenant, or the marketable value of the holding when sold; and there is no mean between them. All the decisions already pronounced, with the exception of Ager v. Sealy (2), proceed upon the basis that it is not the market value: Earl of Enniskillen v. Willis (3). In Adams v. Dunseath (4) Law, C., decided that “true” value meant the market value, but all the other members of the Court dissented from this decision. Some of the Sub-Commissioners seemed to think that, taking the full competition rent and deducting from that the fair rent, the difference capitalised at twenty-five years' purchase represented the “true” value. “True” value in sect. 1, sub-sect. 3, is the same as “specified” value, and consists of the tenant's improvements: Marquis of Headfort's Estate (5).

The only case in which this point was ever directly decided was Ager v. Sealy (1), and that decision was never considered by the

Court of Appeal.

There was no appearance for the tenant.

Cherry (with him R. E. Meredith, Q.C.), for the landlord:—

Lord Ashbourne, C.:—

This is a case stated by the Land Commission in which the following question is submitted for our decision: — Is the true value of a tenancy within the meaning of the 1st section of the Land Law Act (Ireland) 1881, restricted to the value of the improvements on a holding made by the tenant or his predecessor in title for which he has not been paid or otherwise compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title?

As we have heard from the concluding words of Mr. Meredith, the reason why the Land Commission stated the case was because the question was never raised before, and as the seriousness of it was pressed by counsel, they deemed it right not to refuse to state a case. The facts are simple and lie in a narrow compass: the holding is one of twenty-two acres at a rent of £4 15s., and a fair rent was fixed in 1884. The tenant served notice of intention to sell the tenancy, and the landlord served notice of his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption, and having disagreed with the tenant as to the price, served an originating notice to have the true value of the tenancy ascertained. The case came before the Sub-Commission who fixed the true value at the sum of £30. The landlord, considering this sum excessive, appealed, and the case was heard before the Land Commission who affirmed the order of the Sub-Commission. The argument addressed to them was substantially the same as that which we have heard. We have nothing whatever to say to the smallness of the case, or whether a reasonable...