Moore v Davy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 13 October 1928
• Date: 13 October 1928
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Moore v. Davy

ELIZABETH MOORE

Plaintiff

WILLIAM DAVY,Defendant (1)

Supreme Court.

Landlord and tenant - Action for rent - "Standard rent" - Rates "habitually paid" by the landlord - Deduction of rates from rent - Illegal contract to pay poor rate - Rent increased over "standard rent" - Increase not permitted - Increased rent irrecoverable - Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923 (No. 19 of 1923),sect. 1 (b); sect. 2, sub-sects. 1 and 2; sect. 8, sub-sects. 1 and 3;sects. 11, 12, 15.

Apart from any question of special agreement, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923 (No. 19 of 1923), prevents a landlord of premises to which the Act applies, so long as he is not entitled to obtain possession, from throwing upon the tenant the burden of rates which he (the landlord) habitually pays or allows, though his contract to pay the rates may be void in law according to the decision of the House of Lords in Bradshaw v. M'Mullan, [1920] 2 I.R. 490.

So held by the Supreme Court.

A tenant held certain premises under a yearly tenancy at a rent of £22 a year, the landlord undertaking to pay the rates. The tenancy began in 1912, and down to November, 1921, the tenant paid the rent and the landlord the rates. Then the landlord refused to pay the rates, on the ground that a contract by a landlord to pay poor rate was void under sect. 52 of the Local Government (Ir.) Act, 1898. Accordingly the tenant paid the rates, and sought to deduct them from the rent, but the landlord refused to accept the rent so reduced, and sued the tenant for the full amount. The tenant admitted that, as regards the gales of rent which had accrued prior to the passing of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, he must pay the full rent of £22, but disputed liability for the full rent as regards the gales which accrued after the passing of that Act.

Held that, as the landlord "habitually paid . . . the rates" within the meaning of sect. 2, sub-sect. 2, of the Act, the "standard rent" was the sum of £22, less the amount of the rates; that in suing for the rent of £22 the landlord was suing for an "increased rent," i.e., "rent exceeding the standard rent"; that the increase over the standard rent was, under sect. 12, irrecoverable, as it was not permitted under the Act, sect. 11 providing that nothing in the Act was to be taken to authorise any increase of rent except in respect of a period during which, but for the Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession; and, admittedly, the landlord was not entitled to obtain possession, as he had not served a notice to quit. Accordingly the landlord was only entitled to the rent of £22, less the amount of the rates, as regards the gales of rent in question.

Appeal by the defendant from an order, dated the 15th day of June, 1927, made by two of the Commissioners (Mr. Commissioner Overend, k.c., and Mr. Commissioner Shannon, k.c.)appointed under the Circuit Court Appeals Act, 1927 (No. 10 of 1927), to hear appeals from the Circuit Court, which were pending at the date of the passing of the Act.

The plaintiff brought an action in the High Court to recover the sum of £77, being three and a half years' rent of certain premises in Edenderry from 1st November, 1921, to the 1st May, 1925. By consent, the action was transferred to...