Re an Arranging Debtor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1921
• Date: 01 January 1921

In re An Arranging Debtor

In re AN ARRANGING DEBTOR (1)

Appeal.

Bankruptcy - Arrangement - Preferential payment - Contract water rate or rent - "Local Rate" - The Dublin Corporation Waterworks Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. clxxii); the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act,1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 58), sect. 49; Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 60), sect. 4.

Contract water rate or rent payable under the provisions of the Dublin Corporation Waterworks Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. clxxii), is a local rate in respect of which the Corporation is entitled to preferential payment under sect. 49 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 58), and sect. 4 of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 60).

Appeal by the Corporation of Dublin from an order of Pim J., dated May 1st, 1920, declaring that contract water rate payable to the appellants was not a parochial or local rate within the meaning of section 4 of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1889. In the arrangement matter the resolution

passed by the creditors and confirmed by the Court provided that the debtor should pay a composition of two shillings and sixpence in the pound on his debts, payable in two instalments of one shilling and threepence each. The Corporation of Dublin were creditors, and had sent an account of their claim to the official assignee. The claim included a sum of £7 1s. 8d., "contract water rate," or rent due for the supply of water by meter to the debtor's business premises. The Corporation claimed payment of this sum in full as a preferential debt under the provisions of section 4 of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1889. It was admitted that the sum claimed was due, but the official assignee submitted that the Corporation was entitled to a composition only on the debt.

The matter came before the Chief Registrar, who in his memorandum stated:—"This same point was argued before me some years ago, and In re Mather(1) was cited. I then made full inquiries; and, so far as I could ascertain, it has never been the practice of this Court, either of Mr. Justice Boyd, or of the late Chief Registrar, or the Chief Clerk, to treat contract water rate as a preferential debt, and I myself have always ruled that it was not preferential. I have examined the files in the two cases cited to the Master of the Rolls, and they do not bear out counsel's...