Dublin Corporation v White


1965 WJSC-CC 3221

Circuit Court


D 2776 No. 3618/67
Dublin Corporation v. White

JUDGMENT delivered 23rd February 1970Teevan. J

Teevan. J

This is an appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court granting the plaintiff a decree in ejectment against the defendant in respect of premises formerly No. 12, Queen Street in the City of Dublin. The buildings on the property have been demolished in circumstances which I will relate in a moment and is now, along with other adjoining land, a vacant site although fenced in by the Corporation for protective purposes with a stout link fence.


The Corporation come into the case in two distinct capacities, firstly as the sanitary authority for the city charged with the obligation of seeing to the safety of buildings and secondly as landlord of the defendant.


Prior to the defendant's interest, the premises belonged to a Mrs. Seaver as yearly tenant to the Corporation and was sub-let by her to several sub-tenants on the ground floor as a shop and as to two upper floors as two residences. The property was in an advanced state of dilapidation and causing concern to the dangerous building section of the Corporation and the Corporation in consequence invoked their powers under the Dublin Corporation Act and later under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act of 1964. It is unnecessary to detail the history of this aspect of the case; it suffices to say that in the ultimate result the Corporation moved in and demolished the entire building on the site together with the buildings on either side leaving now the aforesaid large vacant site fenced in as I have said.


Aware of the Proceedings for the demolition of the houses and (at that stage of part only - the upper part - of No. 12) Mr. White was anxious to acquire the property including Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 Queen Street for the purpose of speculative development. He was in negotiation for a building lease from the Corporation who were landlords of the entire property concerned. In fact, Mr. White first acquired licences in respect of 9, 10 and 11 and having done so purchased No. 12 from Mrs. Seaver who, hearing of his interest, approached him to buy her property, and a sale to the defendant was concluded for £750. Development along the lines envisaged by...

To continue reading