Dolan v Corn Exchange (No 1)

Judgment Date10 May 1973
Date10 May 1973
CourtSupreme Court

Supreme Court

Dolan v. Corn Exchange

Landlord and tenant - Tenement - New tenancy - Statutory right - Exceptions - Landlord intending to demolish building and to rebuild - Proof of intention - Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931 (No. 55), s. 22, sub-s. 1.

Case Stated.

The applicant was the lessee of the vaults under the Corn Exchange Building and an office, known as the Excise Office, on the ground floor of the building at Burgh Quay in the City of Dublin. The applicant had held the premises from the first respondents under an indenture of lease for a term of 10 years which expired on the 15th April, 1969. On the 2nd January, 1969, the applicant served a notice of his intention to claim a new tenancy from the first respondent. The applicant claimed to have used the premises wholly for the purpose of carrying on a business during the whole of the three years next preceding the 15th January, 1969, in accordance with s. 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, and that he was entitled to a new tenancy in the premises pursuant to s. 20 of the Act of 1931. Sections 19 and 20 of the Act of 1931 appear at p. 170, supra. On the 10th August, 1970, the applicant filed in the Circuit Court an application for an order declaring him to be entitled to a new tenancy in the premises and settling the terms of the new tenancy. On the 11th August, 1970, the first respondents (as landlords) contracted to sell their interest in the premises to the second respondents. The second respondents were added as respondents on the 29th March, 1971, on which date the premises were conveyed to them by the first respondents. Each respondent filed an answer denying that the applicant was entitled to a new tenancy and invoking the provisions of both para. (a) and para. (b)of sub-s. 1 of s. 22 of the Act of 1931 (infra). On the 28th June, 1971, the Circuit Court made the order sought by the applicant and the respondents appealed to the High Court. At the hearing of the appeal Butler J. stated a Case pursuant to s. 38, sub-s. 3, of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, referring to the Supreme Court the point of law which had been raised by the reliance of the respondents on the provisions of s. 22 of the Act of 1931. Originally the Case Stated posed at para. 9 (2) a question of law in relation only to sub-s. 1 (a) of s. 22 of the Act of 1931 but on the 12th April, 1973, Butler J. approved an amendment of para. 9 (2) of the Case Stated so that a question relating to sub-s. 1 (b) of s. 22 of the Act of 1931 was added.

The Case stated by Butler J., as amended, was in the following terms:—

"1. The applicant applied to the Circuit Court pursuant to s. 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an order determining his right to a new tenancy in the premises comprising that portion of the Corn Exchange Building in the City of Dublin which is described in the first schedule hereto.

2. The notice of application to the Circuit Court is dated the 10th August, 1970, and was addressed to the Corporation of the Corn Exchange Building Company of Dublin (hereinafter called 'the Company') as respondents. By order of the Circuit Court dated the 29th March, 1971, made on the application of the Company, Vico Estates Limited (hereinafter called 'Vico') were added as respondents. In their answers each of the respondents disputed the applicant's claim for a new tenancy on, inter alia, the grounds set out in s. 22, sub-s. 1, of the Act.

3. The Circuit Court held that the applicant was entitled to a new tenancy and ordered that the Company should grant and the applicant should accept a new lease of the premises for the term of 21 years from the 15th April, 1969, at the yearly rent of £430 (exclusive of rates) and upon the further terms therein referred to.

4. Vico and the Company appealed to the High Court against the whole of the judgment of the Circuit Court. The appeal was heard by me on the 7th October, 1971, and was further mentioned on the following day.

5. The following facts were proved:—

  • (1) The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • DPP (Travers) v Brennan
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 March 1998
    ...Director of Public Prosecutions v. McMenamin (Unreported, High Court, Geoghegan J., ex. temp., 28th June, 1996). Dolan v. Corn Exchange [1973] I.R. 269. Doyle v. Hearne [1987] I.R. 601; [1988] I.L.R.M. 318. H. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] 2 I.L.R.M. 285. Mitchelstown Co-op. Soc......
  • Wigoder Ltd v Moran
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 21 January 1977
    ...Ch. 748. 13 See p. 118, ante. 14 [1939] 1 Ch. 841. 15 [1943] A.C. 517, 525. 16 [1966] 1 Q.B. 273, 295. 17 [1976] 3 W.L.R. 805. 18 See [1973] I.R. 269. 19 See p. 116, 20 [1968] I.R. 11. 21 [1963] I.R. 185. 22 [1937] I.R. 580. 23 [1937] I.R. 584. 24 [1963] I.R. 185. 25 [1963] I.R. 185. ...
  • Dolan v Corn Exchange (No 2)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 4 December 1975
    ...of the hearing when all the evidence has been received. Griffin J. I agree with the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Henchy. 1 [1973] I.R. 269. 2 See p. 319, post. 3 See [1946] I.R. 32. 4 [1942] I.R. 610. 5 [1967] I.R. 232. 6 (1967) 105 I.L.T.R. 105. 7 [1973] I.R. 269. 8 See [1973] I.R. at......
  • DPP v Brennan
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 March 1998
    ...Co-operative Society -v- The Commissioner of Valuation [1989] IR 210:Doyle -v- Hearne (No. 1) [1987] IR 601 and Dolan -v- Corn Exchange [1973] IR 269. 7 2. The first paragraph of the case stated reads: 8 2 "1. At a sitting of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, held at Court No. 4 in th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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