Frith v Proby

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 October 1933
• Year: 1934
• Date: 23 October 1933
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

Frith v. Proby

PAUL FRITH

Complainant

and

GRANVILLE PROBY, Respondent, (1)

High Court.

Local Government - Rates - "Small dwelling" - Dwelling let at a rent less than the valuation - Liability for rates - "Owner" - Person who would"for the time being" receive a rent equal to or exceeding the valuation if dwelling were let at such rent - Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), sect. 1, sub.-sect. 1.

Sect. 1, sub-sect. 1, of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), provides:—

The word "owner" means, as the case may require, either the person for the time being receiving (whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for another) in respect of the small dwelling in relation to which the expression is used, a rent equal to or exceeding the valuation under the Valuation Acts of such dwelling, or the person who would for the time being so receive in respect of such dwelling a rent equal to or exceeding the said valuation if such dwelling were let at such a rent.

Held, on the construction of this sub-section, that where "a small duckling"is let at a rent less than the valuation, the landlord is not the "owner" within the meaning of the sub-section, since he is not "receiving a rent equal to or exceeding the valuation" within the first portion of the sub-section, nor is he "the person who would for the time being so receive . . . a rent equal to or exceeding the valuation if such dwelling were let at such a rant"within the second portion of the sub-section, as the dwelling being let, the landlord could not "for the time being" receive such a rent, the only person who could receive such a rent being the person in whom the existing tenancy was vested.

Case Stated by District Justice Price on the application of the complainant, Paul Frith, Rate Collector of the Arklow Urban District Council, for the opinion of the High Court.

The material facts were set out in the Case Stated as follows:—

1. At the sitting of the District Court held at Arklow on the 3rd day of July, 1933, the above-named complainant, pursuant to summonses issued the 22nd day of June, 1933, sought to recover from Granville Proby, the defendant, poor rate and town rate in respect of (a) the premises No. 1 Tea Lane, Arklow, and (b) the premises No. 2 Coolgreany Road, Arklow, on the ground that the said Granville Proby was the "owner" of both said premises within the meaning of sect. 1, sub-sect. 1, of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928).

2. The following facts were not in dispute and were proved or admitted as follows:—

• (a) Both of the said premises are "small dwellings"within the meaning of the said Act.

• (b) The premises No. 1 Tea Lane, Arklow, are held by Bridget White as tenant to the said Granville Proby as tenant from year to year under a contract of tenancy reserving a rent of £3 10s. 0d. per

  annum. The Poor Law valuation of the premises is £3 15s. 0d. The tenant is responsible for all repairs. The rent of the premises in August, 1914, was £3 10s. 0d.

• (c) The premises No. 2 Coolgreany Road, Arklow, are held by Mary Kelly under a weekly tenancy at the weekly rent of 6d. per week. The Poor Law valuation of these premises is £1 15s. 0d. The tenant is responsible for all repairs. The rent in August, 1914, was 6d. per week.

• (d) The amount of rates claimed in respect of the premises No. 1 Tea Lane, Arklow, was £1 2s. 6d. for Poor Rate and £2 10s. 0d. for Town Rate.

• (e) The amount of rates claimed in respect of the...