The Gazette 1981

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE Vol. 75, No. I January/February 1981

COMMENT. . . . . . An Unfortunate Hiatus

IN THIS ISSUE Comment . . . An Unfortunate Hiatus A Case of Dependent Relative Revocation Capital Acquisitions Tax: Dis- claimers/Interest and Valua- tion Date ® Safety in Industry Act, 1980. 9 Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages 13 Practice Memorandum: Issuing and Service of Subpoenas.... 13 The Employment Appeals Tribunal: A Review 15 Gripe Night I 6 Law Society Symposium 17 Acts of the Oireachtas 1980.. 19 Presentation of Parchments.... 20 Continuing Legal Education... 21 For Your Diary 21 Professional Information 23 3 5

The suspension by the Land Registry of all arbitra- tions under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1978, which must be causing inconvenience to many members of the public, is to be regretted. It is understood that the suspension follows the decision of the Supreme Court in Gilsenan v. Foundary House Investments and Another , a case arising out of an arbitration by the Dublin County Registrar who had been asked to determine the purchase price of the fee simple of a chemist's shop, the lease of which had less than fifteen years to run at the date of the arbitration. Under the provisions of Section 17 (2) (b) of the 1978 Act, the Registrar was obliged to have regard to a rent which would be reserved by a Rever- sionary Lease for a term of ninety-nine years. The Supreme Court held that no willing lessor would grant such a lease so, accordingly, the County Registrar could not determine what the rent reserved by such a lease would be and therefore could not determine the purchase price for the fee simple. The facts of the case clearly limited the extent of the Court's decision to properties not held under leases with less than fifteen years to run. How then has the effect of the decision become so widespread? It would appear that a sentence in the judgment of the Chief Justice (in which Kenny and Parke, J.J., joined) may provide an explana tion. The sentence reads: "This, in my view, means that Section 17 of the 1978 Act cannot be operated." Consideration of the remainder of the judgment and, indeed, the separate but concurring judgments of Henchy, J., and Griffin, J., show that the key provision of the Act under consideration by the Court was Section 17 (2) (b) and nowhere else in the three judgments is there any suggestion that any other part of Section 17 was under attack. Indeed, the sentence itself is in the middle of a paragraph, all the remaining sentences of which are clearly referable only to Section Í7 (2) (b). It would appear that the reference to Section 17, simpliciter , was a slip of the pen and it is suggested that for the Land Registry to suspend all arbitrations and not merely those where there is less than fifteen years of the term of the lease to run, is an excess of caution. It is clear that the judgments of the Court should be read as a whole and, when they are so read, it is plain that only the provision in Section 17 (2) (b) was held to be incapable of operation.

Executive Editor: Mary Buckley Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith Chairman John F. Buckley William Earley Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney Advertising Liam Ó hOisin Manager: Telephone: 305236

The views expressed in this publication, save where other wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.