O'Reilly v Leahy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 March 1931
• Date: 24 March 1931
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

O'Reilly v. Leahy

JOHN THOMAS O'REILLY, Tenant and Applicant

DANIEL O'MAHONY LEAHY, Landlord and Respondent(1)

High Court.

Supreme Court.

Landlord and tenant - Compensation for unreasonable disturbance - "Good and sufficient cause" for terminating or refusing to grant a renewal of the tenancy - Goodwill - Town Tenants (Ir.) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7,c. 54), sect. 5 - Appeal from High Court to Supreme Court pursuant to certificate of High Court - Form of certificate - Extent of jurisdiction of Supreme Court on hearing appeal - Courts of Justice Act,1924 (No. 10 of 1924), sect. 61.

The tenant of a store used it for the purpose of carrying on a business in the sale of motor cars, new and second-hand, and for repair work. His landlord was the lessee of the premises of which the store formed part. In these premises the landlord carried on his business as a bookmaker and also the business of the Conyngham Club. In addition, he was a member of the board of directors of a motor car company, and had sub-let portion of his offices to the company. He desired to resume possession of the store for the purpose of setting up there an agency for the motor cars manufactured by the company, and he stated that the store was the most suitable place for that purpose. He obtained a decree in ejectment in respect of the store, and the tenant claimed compensation for disturbance under sect. 5 of the Town Tenants (Ir.) Act, 1906.

Held by the Supreme Court (Kennedy C.J. and Murnaghan J.; FitzGibbon J. dissenting), affirming the decision of the High Court (Sullivan P. and Hanna J.), that the landlord had not "good and sufficient cause" within the meaning of the section, for terminating the tenancy; and that, accordingly, the decree of the Circuit Court Judge awarding compensation to the tenant should be affirmed.

Held further by the Supreme Court that where two Judges of the High Court, upon an appeal from the Circuit Court in a civil case, certify, under sect. 61 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, that their decision involves a question of law or fact of such importance as to be fit to be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court, the effect of the section is not to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to a mere determination of the particular question of importance by reason of which the certificate was given, and that, upon an appeal being taken pursuant to the certificate, the Supreme Court is seized of the whole appeal as fully and with as full authority and jurisdiction to deal with it as was the first appellate tribunal, the High Court.

Appeal from the Circuit Court.

John Thomas O'Reilly held certain premises, consisting of a garage or store, at the rear of No. 8 South Anne Street, in the City of Dublin, from Daniel O'Mahony Leahy, under a tenancy from year to year. A written agreement had been prepared, in which the rent was stated to be £50 per annum, but it was never executed. The rent which was being paid when the ejectment proceedings, hereinafter referred to, were instituted was £63 19s. 2d. per annum. The tenancy had been determined by a notice to quit, but O'Reilly did not give up possession, and Leahy brought ejectment proceedings, and obtained a decree in the Circuit Court. Execution of the decree was stayed pending the hearing of a claim for compensation under the Town Tenants (Ir.) Act, 1906, brought by O'Reilly against Leahy. The notice

of the claim, which was in the form prescribed by the Rules made under the Act (O'Reilly being therein described as "the tenant and applicant" and Leahy as "the landlord and respondent"), was as follows:—

"Whereas the above-named tenant and applicant recently held from the landlord all the messuage and premises (hereinafter called the holding), consisting of a garage or store, held under a contract of tenancy from year to year, at the yearly rent of £63 19s. 2DS;, and whereof the Poor Law Valuation is £25, situate at the rear of No. 8 South Anne Street, facing Lemon Street, in the Parish of Saint Anne, and in the County of the City of Dublin, and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Dublin:

And whereas the said tenant asserts that he is being, and has been, unreasonably disturbed in the said holding by the landlord in causing him, the said tenant, to be served with notice to quit the said premises, which said notice to quit expired on the 20th February, 1928, and in instituting proceedings against the said tenant in the Circuit Court of Dublin to recover possession of the said premises for overholding, and obtaining a decree, dated the 28th day of June, 1928, for possession of the said premises, but with a stay of execution until 1st November, 1928, and in refusing without good or sufficient cause to grant a renewal of the said tenancy:

The said tenant claims £900 compensation for the loss sustained by him in quitting the said holding. The particulars of the said loss are stated in the Schedule hereon indorsed.

And take notice that the said tenant will apply to the Circuit Court to assess such compensation at the sessions of the said Circuit Court to be held for the County of the City of Dublin at Green Street, on the 4th day of October, 1928, which you, the respondent, are hereby required to attend personally or by your solicitor. Dated 20th day of July, 1928.

Schedule of particulars of loss sustained by tenant on quitting holding:—

Loss of goodwill ………£900 0 0"

Leahy then served a "notice of dispute of claim" on O'Reilly, and the claim was heard by the Circuit Court Judge (Judge Davitt) on the 12th October, 1928. Judge Davitt awarded O'Reilly £400 compensation. From this award Leahy appealed to the High Court.

The further facts are set out in the judgment of Sullivan P.

This case and the case of Corway v. Smith (reported post,p. 505) were heard together, both dealing with claims under the Town Tenants Act, 1906.

Pursuant to the certificate of the High Court, the landlord appealed to the Supreme Court (1) against the entire order of the High Court, and moved the Court that the orders of the High Court and of the Circuit Court Judge be reversed in regard to the award of compensation, or, in the alternative, that the said award be varied in regard to the assessment of compensation. The grounds set out in the notice of appeal were that the decision of the Circuit Court Judge was against evidence and the weight of evidence; that the Circuit Court Judge misdirected himself as to the law applicable to the facts proved at the hearing; and that the assessment of £400 by way of compensation was excessive, having regard to the facts proved at the hearing.

Sullivan P. :—

The first case of O'Reilly v. Leahy is an appeal from a decision of Judge Davitt, Circuit Judge of Dublin, awarding to O'Reilly the sum of £400 compensation for disturbance, and the only question argued before us is whether the landlord, Leahy, had "good and sufficient cause" for terminating the tenancy. The tenant, O'Reilly, was in possession of these premises as tenant from year to year since 1914, and carried on in the premises the sale of motor cars—principally second-hand motor cars—and motor repairs. In 1927 the landlord required the premises for his own use, and he terminated the tenancy by notice to quit, which expired in February, 1928. Ejectment proceedings were brought, and a decree was granted by Judge Davitt, but he put a stay upon the decree pending the decision on this claim for compensation.

The whole question turns on sect. 5, sub-sect. 1, of the Town Tenants (Ir.) Act, 1906, which provides that: "Where the landlord, without good and sufficient cause, terminates or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy . . . the tenant upon quitting the holding shall . . . be entitled to compensation for the loss of goodwill and the expense which, by reason of his quitting the holding, he sustains or incurs upon or in connection with the removal of his goods, implements, produce, or stock."

On behalf of the landlord it was argued before Judge Davitt that the landlord wanted the premises for his own use, and that, once that fact is established to the satisfaction of the Court, the landlord has shown "good and sufficient cause" for terminating the tenancy, and the tenant is not entitled to compensation. It was argued on behalf of the tenant that "good and sufficient cause" can only arise from acts, or conduct, on the part of the tenant himself, and that unless the landlord can show such acts, or conduct, on the part of the tenant as give him "good and sufficient cause" to eject the tenant, he is liable to pay compensation.

This question has been considered in several cases, to which we have been referred, the decisions in which represent a conflict of judicial opinion. Chief Justice O'Brien and Mr. Justice Dodd expressed the opinion that, if a landlord wanted premises for his own use, that was "good and sufficient cause" for terminating a tenancy therein within the meaning of the section; Mr. Justice Johnson, Mr. Justice Ross, and Lord Justice Cherry were of opinion that good and sufficient cause must emanate from the acts and conduct of the tenant.

In view of this divergence of opinion I feel particularly free to decide this case in accordance with my own interpretation of the section. I can find no justification in the language of the section for restricting the meaning of the words "good and sufficient cause" to cause arising from acts or conduct on the part of the tenant. The section provides that if, "without good and sufficient cause," the landlord terminates the tenancy he shall pay compensation, but it does not contain anything to indicate that the cause may not arise from circumstances peculiar to the landlord over which the tenant has no control. I am, therefore, of opinion that "good and sufficient cause" may exist altogether apart from any acts by the tenant. I am equally clearly of opinion that the mere fact that the landlord wants the premises for his...