The Gazette 1981

3 / 298

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE
Vol. 75, No. I January/February 1981
IN THIS ISSUE
Comment . . . An Unfortunate
Hiatus 3
A Case of Dependent Relative
Revocation 5
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
Law Society Symposium 17
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.
COMMENT. . .
. . . An Unfortunate Hiatus
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.