Fingal County Council v Lynch

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Geoghegan
Judgment Date27 June 1997
Neutral Citation[1997] IEHC 108
Docket NumberNo. 659 S.S./1997,[1997 No. 659 SS]
CourtHigh Court
Date27 June 1997

[1997] IEHC 108

THE HIGH COURT

No. 659 S.S./1997
FINGAL CO. COUNCIL v. LYNCH
IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) ACTS 1961
TO 1986

BETWEEN

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OFFINGAL
PLAINTIFF

AND

DERMOT LYNCH
DEFENDANT

Citations:

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRL) ACT 1878 S65A

LOCAL GOVT (SANITARY SERVICES) ACT 1962 S7

LOCAL GOVT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (NO 2) ACT 1983 S8

LOCAL GOVT (DELIMITATION OF WATER SUPPLY DISCONNECTION POWERS) ACT 1995 S2(2)

LOCAL GOVT (DELIMITATION OF WATER SUPPLY DISCONNECTION POWERS) ACT 1995 S1

INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S11

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRL) ACT 1878 S65A(8)

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRL) ACT 1878 S65A(7)

R V PAYNTER 1845 QB 255

Synopsis:

Practice and Procedure

Joint liability; case stated; recovery of water charges; preliminary issue; whether demand made by plaintiffs adequate; whether plaintiff's wife should have been joined in the proceedings as an occupier of the premises; whether the liability for water charges is a joint liability or a joint and several liability. Held: joint and several liability; not necessary that plaintiffs wife be joined in the proceedings. High Court; Geoghegan J. 27/06/97

Fingal County Council v. Lynch

1

Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered the 27th day of June 1997.

2

This is a consultative case stated sent forward to the High Court by Judge Crowley, a Judge of the District Court. The case arises out of proceedings instituted in the District Court by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the recovery of water charges in respect of the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. As is set out in the Case Stated it was accepted that pursuant to Section 65A of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878 as inserted by Section 7 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962as amended by Section 8 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No.2) Act, 1983the Plaintiff was entitled to raise a charge for water supplied for domestic purposes. It was further common case that prior to the 18th July, 1995 when the Local Government (Delimitation of Water Supply Disconnection Powers) Act, 1995came into force, a water charge was "payable by and recoverable from theperson to whom the water is supplied" but that after that date any water charge raised was payable by "the consumer" under Section 2(2) of the 1995 Act. By Section 1 of the 1995 Act "consumer" is defined as "the occupier of premises for which a supply of water for domestic purposes is provided or, where the premises are either unoccupied or are not owned by a local authority and comprise more than one dwelling, the owner of the premises".

3

Under the provisions of Section 11 of the Interpretation Act, 1937"every word importing the singular shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it also imported the plural, and every word importing the plural shall, unless the contrary intention appears be construed as if it also imported the singular". The respective expressions "person to whom the water is supplied" and "consumer" as well as the expression "the occupier of premises" must all by virtue of the 1937 Act include the plural. In none of these instances was a contrary intention expressed.

4

As appears from the Case Stated the Defendant, Dermot Lynch resides at 36 Berwick Rise, Swords Manor, Co. Dublin which is a property jointly owned by him and his wife, Kathleen Lynch. Both were resident in the premises at the relevant time. Accordingly, it is submitted by the Defendant and I think correctly, that the plural comes into play and that in the case of supplies of water before the 18th July, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Lynch must together be regarded as "the person to whom the water is supplied" and by the same token after the 18th July, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Lynch must be regarded as being "theconsumer".

5

But it was argued on behalf of the Defendant in the District Court that as his wife was not named in either the respective demands for the charges in each of the three years or in the proceedings to recover the charges the proceedings should be dismissed. I believe this submission to be unsound. In the first place the water supplied in each of the years for domestic purposes was according to the Case Stated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Rosborough and Murphy v Cork City Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 March 2008
    ...& ORS v MIN FOR HEALTH & CHILDREN & ORS UNREP CLARKE 29.6.2007 2007 IEHC 222 WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 S33(1) FINGAL CO COUNCIL v LYNCH 1997 2 IR 569 PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1878 S65(a) LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (NO 2) ACT 1983 S8 SWEENEY v DUGGAN 1997 2 IR 531 CARNA FOODS LTD v EA......
  • Dublin City Council v Williams
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 January 2010
    ...2 AC 327 O'DONNELL v CORPORATION OF DUNLAOGHAIRE 1991 ILRM 302 ROSBOROUGH v CORK CITY COUNCIL 2008 4 IR 572 FINGAL CO COUNCIL v LYNCH 1997 2 IR 569 ATHLONE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL v GAVIN 1985 1 IR 434 LOCAL GOVT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)(NO.2) ACT 1983 S2(1) RSC O.84 FUTURA v IMMOBILIARE SR ......
  • Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council v Westwood Club Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 May 2019
    ...the case law supporting this point of view including indeed a decision of my own in the High Court in Fingal County Council v. Lynch [1997] 2 I.R. 569. I entirely agree with the analysis of Clarke J. The consequence of that is that I am of the view that the first question in the case stated......

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