Sligo County Council v Murrow

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1935
• Date: 06 June 1935
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

[H. C., I.F.S.]

Sligo County Council

and

Murrow

Two plots of land - Covenants against assignment - Grants by County Council under the Housing Acts, 1924 and 1925, to lessee for building on the plots - Lessee's application for grants supported by lessor - Lessor aware that repayment of grants would be secured by mortgages -Knowledge of lessor of execution of mortgages -Mortgages executed by lessee without written consent of lessor - Ejectment of lessee by lessor for not-payment of rent - Whether plots were held subject to the mortgages - Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ir.), 1860 (23 24 Vict. c. 154), s. 10 - Estoppel - Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931 (No. 55 of 1931), s. 56 (2) - Whether retrospective - Application of the Act to leases made prior to passing of the Act.

The defendant demised two plots of land by two leases, made respectively in 1927 and 1929, the leases in each case being for the term of 99 years, and containing covenants against assigning or subletting without the written consent of the lessor. For the purpose of erecting three dwelling-houses on the said plots the lessee applied for, and obtained grants under the Housing Acts, 1924 and 1925, from the plaintiff Council, and built the houses. To secure the repayment of these grants the lessee executed three Mortgages to the plaintiff Council, as required by the said Acts, of the plots demised to him by the defendant. The mortgages were dated respectively 26th November, 1927, 24th March, 1928, and 4th May, 1929. No written consent to these mortgages was obtained from the defendant. The defendant subsequently ejected the lessee from both plots for nonpayment of rent. The plaintiff Council by equity civil bill sought a declaration in the Circuit Court that the defendant held the plots subject in equity to the mortgages. The Circuit Court Judge found that the defendant was aware of the applications made to the plaintiff Council for the grants at the time when they were made, that he actively supported the applications, that he knew that mortgages were necessary to secure such grants, and knew, subsequently, of the execution of the mortgages. Accordingly the Circuit Court Judge held that the defendant was estopped from relying on the fact that he had not consented in writing to the mortgages, and the Circuit Court Judge accordingly made an order declaring that the defendant held...