The Gazette 1976

GAZETTE

NE/J

1976

(ii) where the guest (or someone on his behalf)

wished to offer the property for deposit with the

proprietor but, through the default of the proprietor

or his servant, was unable to do so.

Section 7(2) of the 1963 Act provides that the

limitation of liability by notice does not apply to a

motor vehicle. Thus, a hotel proprietor is not permitted

to limit his liability (i n the manner described above)

under Section 6 for damage to, or loss or destruction

of, a guest's motor vehicle.

The effect of section 7 was explained in the Senate

as follows:

"The question was raised in the Dail whether the

new amount of £100 (in place of £30 under the Inn-

keepers Liability Act, 1863), is appropriate to the

changing circumstances of modern times. There is no

question but that the value of money has fallen by more

than that in the past hundred years, but at the same

time the principle, I think, is correct and the principle is

maintained in the Bill. The exact amount is of secon-

dary importance. It is only the liability of the hotel

proprietor as insurer which is limited to one hundred

pounds. It is quite clear that Section 7, therefore, means

that only his liability as insurer in the strict sense of

the term is limited to one hundred pounds by the

Section."

Rights of the hotel proprietor

In return for the onerous liabilities he must bear a

hotel proprietor is given two remedies under the 1963

Act. Section 8 provides that in certain circumstances a

hotel proprietor has a lien over a guest's property and a

right of sale of such property.

1. Lien

A hotel proprietor has a lien upon property for a

debt due by a guest for sleeping accommodation, food

or drink until the debt is paid. There are three points

in relation to the hotel proprietor's lien which should

be noted in particular.

First, the lien extends to property which does not

belong to the guest.

Thus, goods on hire or hire-

purchase which are brought to the hotel by the guest

are covered by the lien. There is authority in England

for the view that even stolen property may be claimed

by a hotel proprietor under h's right of lien.

Secondly, it is immaterial whether the guest is an

"overnight guest" or not. The right of lien still applies.

A hotel proprietor can exercise his lien over the pro-

perty of a guest who for example, merely has a meal

at the hotel. However, the hotel proprietor would not

be strictly liable for damage to the property of such a

guest under Section 6.

Thirdly, it is expressly stated in Section 2(2) of the

English Hotel Proprietors Act 1956 that there is no right

of lien on motor vehicles or any property left in such

motor vehicles. There is no similar provision in the

Irish Act and therefore it can be presumed that here

the lien extends to motor vehicles and the contents

therein.

The scope of the hotel proprietor's lien in Ireland is

wide indeed.

The statutory, power of sale

If the debt remains unsatisfied for at least six weeks

the hotel proprietor may sell by public auction any

property to which his lien extends. He may deduct the

amount of the debt as well as the costs and expenses

of sale from the proceeds of sale and then he must pay

the surplus to the guest.

In England under Section 1 of the Innkeepers Act

1878, the sale by public auction must be advertised, at

least one month before it takes place, in one London

and one country newspaper. There is no requirement in

the Irish Act that the sale must be advertised.

A purchaser of goods from a hotel proprietor who

exercises his right of sale at a public auction gets a

good title. Section 21 (2)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act

1893 ensures the validity of this "statutory power of

sale" and the rule

nemo dat quod non habet

does not

Even if an Irish Court on considering the point

follows

Marsh v. Police Commissioner

and

McGee

and holds that the hotel proprietor's lien upon property

brought to the hotel by a guest extends to stolen pro-

perty, it would seem that the true owner would not

thereby be prevented from suing in conversion the pur-

chaser of the stolen goods which were sold by the hotel

proprietor under the power of sale in the 1963 Act.

According to Crossley Vaines there seems to be no

reason why the power conferred by the Innkeepers Act

1878 (similar

to the power in the 1963 Act) should

differ from similar enactments and cure inherent de-

fects in title.

It is evident that much preparation went into the

drafting of the Hotel Proprietors Bill 1962. The Act

itself is the result of quite a lengthy debate in the

Houses of the Oireachtas for such a short piece of

legislation. The Legislature were "trying to preserve a

proper balance between the rights of the hotel guest

and the obligations to be placed on hotel pro-

prietors".

It is arguable whether they have succeeded

in arriving at a fair compromise. However, it cannot be

denied that the Act is a fine example of legislative

drafting in simple terms.

1. Anon.,

Innkeepers

Liability:

The Need for Reform,

23Ir.

Jur. (1957) 5-6, at p. 5.

2. No. 7 of 1963. The Act came into operation on 1st May

1963.

3. V. T. H. Delany,

The Hotel Proprietors

Act 1963

(1962-

63), 28-29, Ir. Jur. 19-20, at p. 19.

4. T e x t:

European

Treaty Series,

no. 41; 2

European

Con-

ventions

and Agreements

(1961-1970), 75-82. Entered into

force on 15th February 1967.

5. Hotel Proprietors Act, 1963, Section 13. The repealed

legislation is 14 and 15 Chas. 2(Ir.) c. 3.; Innkeepers' Lia-

bility Act, 1863; Innkeepers Act, 1878.

6. Then Mr. Charles Haughey.

7. C. Haughey, Minister for Justice, 56 Seanad Debates, c.290

(20th February 1963).

8. Ibid.

9. Hotel Proprietors Act 1963, Section 12.

10. C. Haughey, 198 Dail Debates, c. 842 (6th December

1962).

11. The original authority for this principle is

Calye's

Case

(1584) 8 Co. Rep. 32a. where it was stated that "if the guest

be beaten

in the inn, the innkeeper shall not answer for it"

12. Bryan M. E. McMahon,

Reform

of Law of

Occupiers'

Liability in Ireland

incorporating a study entitled:

Occupiers'

Liability in Ireland. Survey and Proposals for Reform

(Dublin

The Stationery Office), p. 28.

13. C. Haughey, 56 Seanad Debates, c. 291 (20th February

1963).

14. Hotel Proprietors Act, 1963, Section 6(5)

15. Ibid., Section 1(2).

16. Ibid., Section 11.

17. Ibid., Section 9.

18. It is provided in Section 7(l)(b) of the Hotel Proprietors

Act, 1963, that the hotel proprietor or his servant may

require that the property deposited for safe custody be put in

a container fastened or sealed by the depositor.

19. Professor O'Brien, 56 Seanad Debates c 298 (20th Feb-

ruary 1963).

20. See Hotel Proprietors Act 1963 Section 8(1)

21.

rsh

Police Commissioner

and McGee

(1944)

All

E.R. 39.

/ -

22. Crossley Vaines,

Personal Property,

5th edition, p. 207.

23. C. Haughey, 56 Seanad Debates, c. 359 (6th March 1963).