52 / 82
48
Th»
Gazette of tbe Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[DECEMBER, 1916
The following are the dates upon which
lectures will be delivered to the Senior Class
during Hilary Sittings : —
January 12, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30.
February 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, 20.
Recent Decision affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of Decisions, whether in reported or
unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are
invited from Members.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (ENGLAND).
COURT OF APPEAL.
(Before Swinfen Eady and Bankes, LJJ.,
and A. T. Lawrence, J.)
Hildyard
v.
McDonald and another.
November
17,
1916.—
Solicitor—Costs
—
Lease—Whether Building Lease—Costs
of Lease—Solicitors Remuneration Act,
1881
(44
&
45
Vict., c.
44)—
General
Order made in pursuance of Sched.
1,
Part 2, First Scale and Second Scale—
Sched.
2.
DEFENDANTS' appeal from a decision of
Rowlatt, J. The plaintiff demised about an
acre of agricultural land to the defendants.
The land was granted for the purpose of a
cinema theatre being erected upon it. The
defendants agreed to pay the costs of the
lease. The first scale of charges of Part 2,
Sched. 1, of the General Order under the
Solicitors Remuneration Act,
1881,
has
reference to " leases, or agreements for leases,
at rack rent (other than a mining lease, or a
lease for building purposes, or agreement for
same)."
The
second
scale
refers
to
" conveyances in fee, or for any other free
hold estate, reserving rent, or building lease
reserving rent, or other long leases not at a
rack rent (except mining leases), or agree
ments for the same respectively." The rent
reserved was £150 per annum, and the term
was for fourteen years. There was a lessees'
covenant to erect with reasonable speed a
building for cinematograph entertainments,
the plans to be approved by the lessor.
There was a proviso " that if the military
authorities only allow a less permanent form
of theatre to be erected, then the lessor will
deem their requirements ... as conforming
with this covenant." The lessees covenanted
to keep the premises in repair, and at the
expiration of the lease, if required by the
lessor, to remove the building. There was a
covenant to insure for £1,500, and a proviso
that " the lessor on giving notice
.
.
.
one calendar month before the expiration
... of the tenancy shall be entitled to
purchase " the buildings at a valuation, and
if she did not purchase them it should be
lawful for the lessees to remove them. There
was also a proviso giving the lessees power
to determine the lease on notice in case the
cinemas should be placed out of bounds
during the'term. Rowlatt, J., held that the
lease came within neither scale of Sched. 1,
but within Sched. 2.
The defendants
appealed, and contended that the lease came
within Scale 2.
Held, that the lease was a lease for building
purposes, and was excluded from Scale 1 of
Sched. 1 by the words " or a lease for build
ing purposes; " that the lease came within
Scale 2, for it was not intended by the words
" or other long leases not at rack rent" to
restrict building leases to those which shall
be for long terms of years, but that any
building lease reserving rent comes within
the language, and the other leases that also
come within it are other leases not at rack
rent, but being
long
leases;
that
the
decision of Rowlatt, J., was wrong ; but as
the respondents were content with taxation
under Scale 2 instead of Sched. 2, the appeal
would be dismissed.
(Reported
The Law Times,
Vol. 142, p. 74).
ON AND AFTER 30ra DECEMBER
THE OFFICES OF
MR. GEORGE M. PORTER, Solicitor,
WILL BE AT
20 Wicklow Street, Dublin.
ALL communications connected with THE
GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should
be addressed to the Secretary of the Society,
Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin.