The Gazette 1981

GAZETTE

DECE

R 1981

playing rugby football on the

terms of the agreement of 14

July 1956;

(c) Damages for trespass;

(d) Further and other relief.

The Defendants alleged that:

(a) The agreement of 14 July 1956

was not a lease but only a

licence;

(b) That the Plaintiffs did not at all

times comply with the covenants

and conditions contained in the

agreement;

(c) That the Plaintiffs did not at all

times pay the annual rent

provided for;

(d) Further and other relief,

serious and continual breach of

the covenants and other terms of

the agreement; and

(e) That the Plaintiffs had used the

field for periods in excess of

those envisaged by the agree-

ment and had failed to maintain

the playing pitch and its sur-

rounds and to keep them

properly cut and maintained and

that notices of these breaches

had been repeatedly given to the

Plaintiffs and that undertakings

had been received to the effect

that there would be no repetition

of these breaches.

The Defendants counterclaimed that

they had also terminated the

agreement by re-entering in or about

the month of February 1975 and that

by notice dated 25 February 1975,

they required the Plaintiffs not to re-

enter the lands and counterclaimed:

(a) For a declaration that they had

lawfully terminated the licence

and were entitled to exclude the

Plaintiffs from the lands;

(b) Arrears of rent to the date of ter-

mination;

(c) £1,000

damages

for

the

Plaintiffs' breaches of covenants

and other terms and conditions

of the agreement.

At the hearing of the action, counsel

for the Plaintiffs had applied for and

was granted leave to amend the

Plaintiffs' reply and defence to

counterclaim by including a claim for

relief against forfeiture.

Held

(per Hamilton J.): that the

agreement in writing of 14 July 1956

was not a lease but merely a licence

which had been determined by for-

feiture but that the principles with re-

gard to the granting or withholding of

equitable relief applied to the facts of

the case, such that:

(i) Regard must be had to the con-

duct of the licencee (i.e. the

Plaintiffs); and

(ii) Generally speaking, where the

forfeiture was only for securing

payment or where there was no

injury from the delay in payment

or only such injury that the

payment of a sum for interest,

and, if needs be, costs, would be

full compensation for it, relief

would not be refused.

The excessive use of the premises and

certain damage done to the grass by

the use of a corrosive substance in

the laying of lines of demarcation of

the pitch could in the circumstances

be so compensated. Equitable relief

against forfeiture was granted on

terms for the payment of arrears of

rent and an undertaking by the Plain-

tiffs to comply in future with the

terms and conditions contained in

agreement of 14 July 1956.

Judd and others, as trustees of

Bective Rugby Football Club v.

McAlinden and others, as trustees of

Merrion Cricket Club.

High Court

(per Hamilton J.) - 28 March 1980

— unreported.

Summaries of judgments prepared by

Frank Daly, Eugene Davy, Peter

Polden and Michael Roche and

edited by Michael V. O'Mahony.

SKYPAK

International Ireland Ltd.

143 Lower Drumcondra Road,

Dublin 9.

Telephone 376758 - 378371.

Telex: 31312.

ft Couriers to the Legal World,

ft Specialist in Document Handling.

viii