Marron, Appellant, and The Cootehill (No. 2) Rural District Council, Respondents

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 March 1915
• Date: 25 March 1915
• Court: House of Lords (Ireland)

Marron,

Appellant

and

The Cootehill (No. 2) Rural District Council,

Respondents (1)

H. L.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1915.

[HOUSE OF LORDS.]

Local Government — Labourers (Ireland) Acts — Labourer's Cottage — Preference on First Letting — Right to Particular Cottage — Discretion of Instrict Council — Letting to Labourer on whose behalf no Representation had been signed — Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 7), s. 29 — Effect of Section apart from Regulations made under it.

A district council had acquired land under an improvement scheme made under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and founded on “representations” made by certain agricultural labourers, of whom the appellant was one. When eight cottages, out of a large number comprised in the scheme, had been built, the council allotted one of them to K., an agricultural labourer, who had not signed any of the representations on which the scheme was founded, but whose needs were more urgent than the appellant's. Prior to the erection of the remaining cottages under the scheme the plaintiff brought an action against

the council for a declaration that, under sub-s. 2 of s. 29 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 (1), he was entitled to a preference as against K, or any other person on whose behalf no representation was lodged, to be admitted as tenant on the first letting of the cottage, and claiming possession and an injunction and damages.

Held, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland, [1914] 1 I. R. 208, that the plaintiff's action was not maintainable.

Held, by Viscount Haidane L.C., Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker of Warrington, and Lord Parmoor, that the appellant had not a preferential right to any particular cottage. Condon v. Mitchelstown Rural District Council, [1914] 1 I. R. 113, 118, approved.

Held, by Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sumner, and Lord Parmoor, that the preference on the first letting of cottages to labourers on whose behalf representations have been made, referred to in s. 29 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, is not an absolute preference, but only a preference caeteris paribus.

Quaere, per Lord Atkinson, does s. 29, apart from regulations made under it, confer a right of preference?

Appeal, in forma pauperis, from a decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland reversing the judgment of the Master of the Rolls (reported [1914] 1 I. R. 201, 208) in an action wherein the appellant was plaintiff and the respondents were defendants.

The plaintiff claimed in the action:—1. A declaration that he was entitled, in preference to Joseph Kennedy or any other person on whose behalf no representation was lodged, to be admitted as tenant to the defendants upon the first letting by the defendants of a certain labourer's plot and cottage, situate in the townland of

Aughnamullen, Electoral Division of Anny, and erected by the defendants, pursuant to the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1906, on the said plot. 2. To be put into possession of the said plot and cottage as tenant to the defendants, upon signing the usual contract of tenancy. 3. An injunction to restrain the defendants from letting, continuing to let, or attempting to let, the said plot and cottage to any person other than the plaintiff, or otherwise attempting to defeat the right of the plaintiff to such preference. 4. An injunction to compel the defendants to make a letting of the said premises to the plaintiff, and for this purpose to do all necessary acts for obtaining vacant possession thereof, and for determining all (if any) lettings, or attempted lettings, thereof. 5. Damages. 6. Further or other relief. 7. Costs.

The material facts are set out in the report of the case before the Master of the Rolls and in the Court of Appeal, [1914] 1 I. R. 201, 208, and in the judgment of Lord Atkinson, infra.

The Master of the Rolls made an order declaring the plaintiff entitled, in preference to Joseph Kennedy or any other person on whose behalf no representation was lodged, to be admitted as tenant to the defendants upon the first letting by the defendants of the plot and cottage in question. He made no order as to possession of the said plot and cottage, or for letting the same to the plaintiff, the said Joseph Kennedy not being a party to the action. He declared the plaintiff entitled to the sum of £30 damages, to be paid by the defendants, and the costs of the action.

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, and ordered that the action should be dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff appealed in forma pauperis to the House of Lords.

Serjeant Sullivan K.C., and D. J. O Brien K.C. (with them J. T. Donovan), for the appellant.

Jellett K.C., Gerald Fitzgibbon K.C., and E. S. Murphy, for the respondents, were not called on.

The House took time for consideration.

Serjeant Sullivan K.C., and D. J. O BrienK.C. (with them J. T. Donovan), for the appellant.

Jellett K.C., Gerald FitzgibbonK.C., and E. S. Murphy, for the respondents, were not called on.

Viscount Haldane L.C.

My Lords, I think that this appeal ought to fail, and I rest this conclusion on reasons which I can express briefly.

The Master of the Rolls made a declaration that the appellant was entitled, in preference to Kennedy or any other person on whose behalf no representation was lodged, to be admitted as tenant of the plot and cottage in question, and awarded the appellant £30 as damages. The Court of Appeal reversed this judgment. I have come to the conclusion that the Court of Appeal was right.

Section 29 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, begins by imposing on the district council the duty of making regulations with respect to the letting of cottages and allotments under the Labourers Acts, and for preventing any undue preference in the letting, and generally for carrying the provisions of these Acts into effect. It then goes on to enact that these regulations shall provide that, on the first letting of any cottages or allotments comprised in a scheme, preference shall be given to agricultural labourers who have made the representation on which the scheme was founded, or on whose behalf the representation was made.

My Lords, I can conceive a case in which a labourer, belonging to the class defined, by the making of a representation would be entitled to a mandamus to compel the council to make regulations. It is also possible—it is not necessary to express an opinion on the point—that such a labourer might be entitled to an injunction in a case where the council was so proceeding as to deprive him of all chance of a letting. But I am unable to find in the section language which entitles the labourer to assert title to a specific holding in a case like the present. The scheme here provided for the erection of twenty-five cottages. The right of the appellant is not to any particular cottage, but to a preference over strangers in the carrying out of the scheme as a whole. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it was wrong to let to Kennedy, in so far as some person in the class entitled would thereby be left unprovided for, it does not follow that the appellant was injured. For he had no title to the particular cottage allocated to Kennedy, and his right might have been satisfied by the allocation of some other cottage. I have read the section as intended to give to the council a discretion as to how a scheme is to be carried out in detail, provided the general principle laid down in the section is adhered to; and I do not find it proved that the principle has been, or will be, departed from in this case. I therefore think that neither the declaration of title to the specific cottage, made by the Master of the Rolls, nor his award of damages, can be supported.

I have only to add that the case attempted to be made as to want of bona fides in the exercise of their discretion by the council appears to me to fail. The members may have given wrong reasons for what they did, but they acted within their powers, and legitimately.

I move accordingly.

Lord Dunedin:—

My Lords, the plaintiff, an agricultural labourer on whose behalf an application was lodged to be admitted as tenant on the first letting of a certain labourer's plot and cottage, which formed part of an improvement scheme promoted by the defendants, the rural district council, and confirmed by the Local Government Board, was not admitted as tenant to that plot, one Kennedy being preferred to him. In this action he asks, first, for a declaration that he is entitled to a preference as against Kennedy or any other person by whom or on whose behalf no representation had been signed; second, for an order putting him in possession of the plot on his signing a lease; third, for an injunction against the defendants letting the plot to any other than him; and, fourth, for damages.

The learned Master of the Rolls, before whom the case depended, gave him the declaration asked for, and £30 damages, but refused the further relief on the ground that Kennedy was not cited as a party to the action. The Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, and dismissed the case.

My Lords, the plaintiff's whole case is rested upon sub-s. 2 of sect. 29 of the Act of 1906, which I need not quote again. Now, it is quite clear that whatever right it gives, it cannot give a right to a specific cottage being one out of a number in a scheme. The judgment of the Irish Court of Appeal in Condon'sCase (1) was, I think, clearly right; and if that is so, it seems to me to follow that it is quite impossible to give the plaintiff damages. Granted that Kennedy was unduly preferred to him, how does it follow that someone else, with the qualification that Kennedy did not possess, may not, with Kennedy out of the way, still be preferred to the plaintiff? The...