Quirke v Folio Homes Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McCarthy J.,GRIFFIN J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1987 WJSC-SC 1044
• Date: 01 January 1988
• Court: Supreme Court

1987 WJSC-SC 1044

THE SUPREME COURT

Griffin J.

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

293/85

QUIRKE v. FOLIO HOMES LTD

DANIEL QUIRKE

v.

FOLIO HOMES LIMITED

Citations:

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT 1960 PART II

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT 1960 PART IV

BLAKE V AG 1982 IR 117 1981 ILRM 34

HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS) BILL 1981 S9(1)

CONSTITUTION ART 26

HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS)(BILL) 1981, IN RE 1983 IR 181

HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS) (AMDT) ACT 1983 S9

HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS) ACT 1982 S13

HOUSING (PRIVATE RENTED DWELLINGS) ACT 1982 S13(2)

Synopsis:

LANDLORD AND TENANT

Rent

Determination - Tribunal - Decision - Appeal - Relevant factors in determining rent - Factors prescribed by statute - Means of landlord - Respondent landlords were a property investment company - The gross rent was to be the rent which, in the opinion of the statutory tribunal, would be a just and proper rent having regard to (inter alia) the nature, character and location of the dwelling; the other terms of the tenancy, and the "means of the landlord" and the tenant - At the hearing of the landlords" application to the tribunal for a determination of the rent of the tenant's dwelling, the tenant gave evidence of his income and sought to ascertain the landlords" income - The landlords furnished the tribunal with evidence of their income from the rents of over 600 properties and, apart from admitting that their income exceeded that of the tenant, refused to give any other details of their income - The tribunal determined the tenant's rent at #16 p.w. - The High Court (Gannon J. - 4/3/85) rejected the tenant's submission that the tribunal had erred in failing to have due regard to the means of the landlords - Held, in disallowing the tenant's appeal, that the amount of the landlords" income would have been a relevant factor in determining the tenant's rent only if the landlords had sought to make it so - Decision of the High Court affirmed - Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982, s.13(2) - (293/85 - Supreme Court - 10/4/87) [1988] ILRM 496

|Quirke v. Folio Homes|

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Purpose

Litigants - Interests - Protection - Tribunal - Determination of tenant's rent - Relevant factors - Factors prescribed by statute included means of landlords - Landlords admitted that their income exceeded that of the tenant - Landlords refused to disclose full amount of their income - Held that the income of the landlords would have been a relevant factor in the determination of the rent if the landlords had sought to make it so - Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982, s.13(2) - (293/85 - Supreme Court - 10/4/87) [1988] ILRM 496

|Quirke v. Folio Homes|

1 Judgment of McCarthy J.delivered on the 10th day of April, 1987. [NEMDISS]

2 On the 18th April 1980, McWilliam J. declared that Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960were invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution; hisdecision, affirmed by this Court on the 29th of June 1981, resulted inlegislation, part which is the subject of the instant appeal. In Blake's case 1 McWilliam J. condemned the relevantParts of the Act as "repugnant to the provisions of theConstitution in that a group of citizens arbitrarily selected has beendeprived of property for the benefit of another group of citizenswithout compensation, with no limitation on the period of deprivation,and with no indication of any occasion which necessitates theirselection for this purpose from amongst the general body ofcitizens." 2 O'Higgins C.J., delivering the judgment ofthis Court,

founded it as follows:-

"It is further to be noted that the statutory provisions contained in Part II of the Act of 1960 operated in respect of the house or dwelling controlled, irrespective of the means of the tenant. Neither the means of the tenant nor the lack of means of, or possible hardship to, the landlord may be considered in determining the permitted rent. Therefore, it is apparent that in this legislation rent control is applied only to some houses and dwellings and not to others; that the basis for the selection is not related to the needs of the tenants, to the financial or economic resources of the landlords, or to any established social necessity; and that, since the legislation is now not limited in duration, it is not associated with any particular temporary or emergency situation. Such legislation, to escape the description of being unfair and unjust, would require some adequate compensatory factor for those whose rights are so arbitrarily and detrimentally affected. No such compensatory factor is to be found in the impugned provisions of Part II of the Act of 1960."

3 The legislature sought to deal with the resulting problem by enactingthe Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981 but the provisions ofs. 9, subs. 1 of that Bill were, on a reference pursuant to Art. 26 of the Constitution, held by this Court to be repugnant to theConstitution 3.

The consequent decontrol of a large...