Twomey v Cronin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 June 1937
• Date: 03 June 1937
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

High Court.

Twomey v. Cronin.

MARY TWOMEY

Plaintiff

and

JOHN CRONIN, Defendant (1)

Landlord and Tenant - Rent restriction - Rent paid in excess of the amount permitted by the Act - Whether recoverable from the landlord by the personal representative of the tenant - Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923 (No. 19 of 1923), sect. 15, sub-sect. 1; sect. 1 (g)and (h).

Appeal from the Circuit Court.

The plaintiff, Mary Twomey, the widow and administratrix of Humphrey Twomey, deceased, issued a Civil Bill on the 12th day of December, 1934, the claim indorsed upon which was as follows:—

"The plaintiff's claim is for the sum of £77 12s. 6d., money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff, also due as money paid by way of excess rent and made recoverable from the defendant by virtue of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, on her own behalf and on behalf of Humphrey Twomey deceased."

Particulars of the claim were then set out, but the following facts were admitted by the parties for the purposes of the case both in the Circuit Court and on appeal:—

"1. That Humphrey Twomey, the husband of the plaintiff, was tenant to the defendant of the premises, No. 5 Cattle Market Street, in the City of Cork, from the 15th day of March, 1920, to the 1st day of June, 1930.

2. That the plaintiff is the legal personal representative of the said Humphrey Twomey, who died on the 1st day of June, 1930.

3. That from the 1st day of June, 1930, to the 31st day of December, 1930, the plaintiff was the tenant of the said premises to the defendant.

4. That the plaintiff since that date and at present is the tenant of the said premises, which are, since the 31st day of December, 1930, in the ownership of another person.

5. That the standard rent of the said premises is

£14 0s. 11d. per annum. The lawful rent, including permitted increases, is £25 15s. 2d. per annum.

6. During the whole period covered by the Civil Bill Humphrey Twomey, and subsequently the plaintiff, paid between them the sum of £77 12s. 6d. more than the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases. This sum is recoverable by the plaintiff if she is entitled to sue in respect of the overpayments made by herself and the said Humphrey Twomey for the full period covered by the said Civil Bill.

7. If the plaintiff is only entitled to recover overpayments made by her since the death of the said Humphrey Twomey on the 1st day of June, 1930, and not overpayments made by him during his lifetime, the sum recoverable is £4 10s. 0d."

This statement of admissions, together with certain other admissions which are not material since the decision of the High Court in Lowe v. Gilchrist(1) was given, was signed on behalf of the parties by their respective solicitors.

The Circuit Court Judge (Judge O'Donnell) dismissed the plaintiff's claims in respect of the overpayments, and from that order she appealed.

At the hearing of the appeal it was conceded by counsel for both parties that, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover overpayments made by her husband, she was entitled to recover overpayments made during the entire period covered by the Civil Bill since Lowe v. Gilchrist(1) decided that twenty years was the period of limitation for the recovery of such overpayments.

It was also conceded that the plaintiff, in any event, was entitled to a decree for £4 10s. 0d. being the amount of overpayments actually made by her as tenant to the defendant in respect of the period from the 1st of June, 1930, to the 31st of December, 1930.

Rent...