The Gazette 1975

Recent Irish Cases

Claim by cemetery to be exempted from rates

rejected

Claim by plaintiffs and three rate collectors against

defendant, owners of Glasncvin Cemeterv for rates

irom April, 1964, to March, 1971. The "defendants

claim exemption from rating for the reason that the

'and is used as a burial ground. The plaintiffs were

unsuccessful i

making a similar case in 1897 —

reported (1897) 2 I.R. 156; it was then unsuccessfully

claimed that the lands were used for charitable

Purposes under S. 2 of the Valuation Act, 1854. The

Present application is made under S. 63 of the Poor

Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, which states that "No

burial ground or cemetery . . . . used exclusively for

charitable purposes, shall be rateable, except where

a n

y private profit or use is derived therefrom".

From the cases of McGahan v. Commissioner for

palliation—(1934) I.R. 736—and Barringtons Hospital,

Limerick v. Commissioner for Valuation—(1957) I.R.

2 9 9

it is clear that burial grounds and cemeteries are

not to be rated at all unless private profit is derived

from it. Evidence was produced that, from audited

accounts, the cemetery had been run at a loss from

f>4 to 1971 , and consequently during that period was

not a source of private profit. However, as long as the

defendants remained rated in respect of an assumed

annual profit, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim for

rates. It was for the defendants to seek to have the

valuation lists revised, which they have not done. The

Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to recover the

amount claimed.

Dublin Corporation v. Dublin Cemeteries Com-

mittee—O'Kceffe P.—unreported—9th July, 1974.

Architect's claim for fees substantially reduced

The Plaintiff, an architect, claims £3,110 due for

tees in respect of work done by the Defendants. The

Plaintiff pleaded that the contract between the parties

pas contained (1) partly verbally, and (2) partly in

tetters from the plaintiff to the defendant dated

f June, and 1 Julv, 1971, and a reply from the

defendant to the plaintiff dated 8 July, 1971. The

defendant pleaded that there were at the times and

Places stated vague and uncertain arrangements in

gard to the proposed developments of the land in

question, and that at no time were any proposed

orks the subject of a written agreement: they also

Pleaded that there was never a valid and binding

fcreement between the parties. The letters referred to

. Purport to set out the terms upon which the

Plaintiff was to be employed in connection with a

Proposed scheme of development of lands at Ross-

9 °'

D o n e

g a l - I" the letter of 29 June, 1971,

® Pteintiff suggested that the scheme should be

with

6nte(

a S a c o m

l e

x of Fishing and Shooting Lodges

a n c i l l a

r y residential club facilities planned on an

^musement parkland. The plaintiff stated that he

cted to be sole architect of the shooting lodges as

well as receiving the usual 6% fee on the Residential

Club, plus hotel and travelling evpenscs. In the letter

of 1 July, 1971, the plaintiff stated that, if the scheme

of the letting of the shooting lodges was successful,

he would collect his full R.I.A.I. scale fees from the

individual purchasers concerned, who would be tied

to him as sole architect of the project. The defendant

in his reply of 8 July, 1971, dealt with the approval

of the site by the Co. Engineer, but did not mention

the question of remuneration; it must therefore be

assumed that he agreed to the plaintiff's terms.

As none of the situations arose, in which the

R.I.A.I. charges were to apply, the plaintiff's claim

must be confined to "quautuni meruit". The only part

of the scheme for which full planning permission had

been granted, was for Lodge No. 1, to be occupied by

the defendants. Originally the lodge was a four-

bedroom house, but it eventually became a six bed-

room house, which is now a registered guest house:

the plaintiff estimated the cost at £17,500 and this

was not disputed. Apart from the preparation of

detailed plans, and the supervision of the work,

involving a number of visits to Co. Donegal, the

architect had to sort out the difficulties which arose

by reason of the fact that the Engineer employed by

the dependants parted company with him in February,

1972, The account furnished by the plaintiff, totalling

£3,109. covered the period from June, 1971. to June,

1972. He had also submitted in May, 1972, an

additional bill of £1,050 for survey design and planning

in view of the enlargement of the original plans, pro-

curement of materials being 6% of £17,500.

The plaintiff admits that, except for a sum of £24

which will be allowed all proper travelling and hotel

expenses had been paid. Having considered all the

circumstances, Pringle J. held that a reasonable claim

would be 4% on the total cost, i.e. £700 plus £10 for

printing; this is to include the earlier sketch plan, as

well as all the supervision. A charge of £7 per hour

is reduced to £4, and the total amount allowed in

respect of individual items is £520. If this sum of £520

is to be added to £710 already allowed, the total

amount of the claim allowed is £1,230.

(Devaney v. Reidy—Pringle J.—unreported—10

May, 1974.)

If a general meeting ratifies unlimited borrowings

of a company, a debenture with a bank

is valid, and all amounts due by the company

under the debenture must be paid.

The Company concerned was incorporated in

February, 1953, in order to take on as a going concern

the business of building contractors carried on by

the two person named in the companv. There was a

special clause (m) in the Memorandum relating to the

borrowing of money. Except for special terms relat-

ing to borrowing, Table A of the Companies Act, 1908

applied to this Company. The share capital of the