211 / 300
the Act of 1959 only applied to persons dying on or
after 1 June 1959 and not to those who had died before
then. Under Section 113 (3) of the Registration of
Title Act, 1964, it was provided that Part IV of the
Act of 1891 was to continue to apply to all land which
was subject to that Act before 1964. Under Section 9
(3) of the Succession Act, 1965, it was enacted that its
provisions do not apply to any persons dying before
1 January 1967. It follows that Section 84 (3) of the
Act of 1891 still applies to this sale; consequently the
personal representative has the same power of dealing
with the land as if he were the registered owner. The
plaintiff is therefore able to show good title to the lands
if he can give clear possession. This is reinforced by
the strong terms of Section 51 of the Succession Act,
1965, which states specifically that a purchaser from a
personal representative shall be entitled to hold that
property freed and discharged from all debts and liabi-
lities of the deceased . . . and from all claims of the
persons entitled to any share in this estate; it is to be
noted that this section applies to persons dying before
this Act. The summons will consequently be granted.
[Sheils v Flynn; Kenny J.; unreported; 2 May 1974.]
Increase of airport landing fees made by Minister in
respect of Shannon Airport after 1 April 1969
valid.
The Minister for Transport and Power claims from
the defendant the sum of £19,975, being the balance
of landing charges due by them in respect of the use of
the services of Shannon Airport for their aircraft
between 1 April 1969 and 24 July 1970. Before 1 April
1969 all charges made by the Minister were duly paid on
presentation of invoices. On 1 April 1968 the then
Minister made a decision that a 20 per cent increase be
applied from 1 April 1969 and on 3 July 1968 that was
sanctioned by the Minister for Finance. There were
subsequent lengthy discussions between the Inter-
national Air Transport Association (I.A.T.A.) repre-
senting the defendants and other airlines. The Associa-
tion would not agree to the increase, and the Minister
consequently put the increase into force. On 1 April
1969 an additional 7£ per cent, which is not disputed,
was imposed in substitution for the abolition of fuel
through put charges. After 1 April 1969 the defendants
received invoices for landing charges showing the
increased amounts, but they continued to pay the
Minister at the old rate, plus the 7£ per cent not in
dispute. This is a test case, as other airlines using
Shannon Airport have adopted the same procedure.
In the action before O'Keeffe P. the Minister relied
on Section 37 of the Air, Navigation and Transport
Act, 1936, as the authority giving him the right to fix
charges on landing fees. By S.I. No. 125 of 1959, the
functions under this Act originally vested in the Min-
ister for Industry and Commerce were transferred to
the plaintiff. The President held that Section 37 of the
1936 Act does not authorise the plaintiff to charge for
the services he provides at aerodromes. Although the
Minister may have power to fix charges for landing at
aerodromes, it was not to be found in Section 37
relied upon. The President accordingly dismissed the
Minister's claim.
The claim has now been made on an implied con-
tract, and it was submitted that once the Minister gives
notice under the Chicago Convention of April 1947
that the Minister is entitled to make the appropriate
charges. The relevant Article in the Chicago Conven-
tion is Article 15 which deals with "Airport and Similar
Charges". The defendant airline contended that, m
fixing the scale .of charges applicable at Shannon, the
Minister is compelled by Section 9 of the 1946 Act to
make a formal Order which would then have the
force of law in the State, but it was held that the
Minister was not required to make a formal Order,
as the Order was not necessary for carrying out the
Chicago Convention and for giving effect thereto.
Section (1) of the 1946 Act sets out specific matters
which may be made by order, and these include pre-
scribing a scale of charges at licensed aerodromes, but
Shannon was not licensed. As the scale of charges
imposed was no higher for foreign than domestic air-
lines, it was valid according to Article 15 of the Chicago
Convention, provided that this scale had been properly
communicated to IATA, which it had. The defen-
dants and other airlines, upon receiving this notice,
impliedly contracted to pay such charges on landing-
The fact that the plaintiff has relied upon different
grounds in the Supreme Court than in the High Court
should not prejudice him. As the Rules of the Superior
Courts allow pleadings to be amended at any time, the
plaintiff's application to amend the pleadings will be
granted.
Accordingly the Supreme Court (FitzGerald C.J-,
Walsh and Griffin JJ.) allowed the appeal and granted
the Minister an order for payment of £19,975 by the
defendants in respect of landing fees at Shannon
Airport.
[The Minister for Transport and Power v Trans
World Airlines Inc.; Supreme Court (FitzGerald C.J-,
Walsh and Griffin JJ.); separate judgments by Walsh
J. and Griffin J.; unreported; 6 March 1974.] ]
Rights of minority shareholder upheld on ground that
directors conducted the company in an oppressive
manner.
Westwinds Ltd. was incorporated under another
name in March 1964; its principal object was to take
over and carry on the business of builders and public
works contractors in Galway in accordance with an
agreement, which had apparently not been prepared.
The main shareholder, a developer, had discussions
with the petitioner, to arrange for the petitioner to take
shares in and become a director of Westwinds, in 1965.
On 21 July 1965 the petitioner, who had become secre-
tary, and an auditor met at the petitioner's solicitors s
office in Galway. The terms upon which the petitioner
was to join the company were settled, as was the
distribution of shares in the company—namely 5.000
shares to the developer and 5,000 shares to the peti-
tioner.
In 1968 the company purchased a site of three acres
at Knocknacarra. Full planning permission for four
houses was obtained, which were duly built and sold.
However, the company was unable to obtain planning
permission in respect of the remaining two acres, as
there were no sewerage services, and the water supply
was inadequate. It was falsely contended at the time
that these lands belonged to another company of the
developer. These lands were duly registered in a Land
Registry Folio, and in November 1968 the two acres
were sold for £600 to a third company (Company B)
209