Sauerzweig v Feeney
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Henchy J. |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | 1986 WJSC-SC 1459 |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 301 of 1985] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 07 July 1986 |
1986 WJSC-SC 1459
THE SUPREME COURT
Finlay C.J.
Henchy J.
McCarthy J.
Citations:
BANK OF IRELAND V CAFFIN 1971 IR 123
G V G 1984 IR 368
GAFFNEY V GAFFNEY 1975 IR 133
MAYO-PERROTT V MAYO-PERROTT 1958 IR 336
SACHS V STANDARD CHARTERED BANK UNREP BARRINGTON 30.07.85 1985/9/2758
Synopsis:
WORDS AND PHRASES
"Public policy"
Divorce - Foreign decree - Ancillary order - Enforcement within the State - Parties domiciled in country of decree - (284/85 - Supreme Court - 18/7/86) - [1987] ILRM 297
|Sachs v. Standard Chartered Bank|
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Divorce
Foreign decree - Ancillary order - Enforcement within jurisdiction - Parties domiciled in country of decree - Validity of foreign decree accepted - Order directing former husband to pay #35,000 to former wife - Enforcement of order within the State not contrary to public policy - Decision of Barrington J. (30/7/85) affirmed - Maintenance Orders Act, 1974, ss.39 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 41 - (284/85 - Supreme Court - 18/7/86) - [1987] ILRM 297
|Sachs v. Standard Chartered Bank|
CONSTITUTION
Divorce
Prohibition - Foreign decree - Ancillary order - Enforcement within jurisdiction - Parties domiciled in country of decree - Validity of foreign decree accepted - Order directing former husband to pay capital sum to former wife - Enforcement of order within the State not contrary to public policy - Decision of Barrington J. (30.7.85) affirmed - Article 41 - (284/85 - Supreme Court - 18/7/86) - [1987] ILRM 297
|Sachs v. Standard Chartered Bank|
Judgment of Henchy J.delivered the 7 July 1986[NEM DISS]
This is a case stated by Judge Smith sitting in the Dublin Circuit Court. It arises out of an appeal before him from a decree for possession given in the District Court. That decree was in respect of premises at 11 George's Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin.
The facts are not in dispute. They show that the plaintiff claimed possession as the successor in title of a landlord who in 1942 entered into a written contract of tenancy with the defendant, whereby the defendant acquired a tenancy from week to week in the premises at a rent of 15/- a week. The plaintiff acquired the landlord's interest on the death of her father in 1962.
It appears that the tenant has paid no rent since 1950. About 1956 there were negotiations for the purchase of the landlord'sinterest by the defendant, but those negotiations came to nothing. In 1956 the defendant made efforts to pay the rent, but he was dissuaded from doing so by the landlord's solicitor, on the ground that negotiations for the purchase by him of the landlord's interest were still pending. As I have said, the defendant paid no rent since 1950 and the only steps taken by the landlord in regard to the collection of the rent were three letters written by his solicitor - in August 1977, August 1978 and February 1981 - requesting payment of the rent. Moreover, it is the tenant who has paid the ground rent and the rates since 1960.
The plaintiff, having served a notice to quit determining the weekly tenancy, brought in the District Court a civil process for overholding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teresa Minogue as Personal Representative of Denis Minogue (Deceased) v Clare County Council
...follows: (i). the tenancy must be from year to year or other period; (ii). there must be no lease in writing (see Sauerzweig v. Feeney [1986] I.R. 224); (iii). the right of action of the person entitled to the land must have accrued on a particular date by virtue of a last payment of rent; ......
-
Dooley v Flaherty
...to quit, but the tenant claimed title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court rejected this latter claim, with Henchy J. observing ( [1986] I.R. 224, 227): "The landlord showed that she had not determined or abandoned the tenancy when she made formal demands in writing for the payment of ......