238 / 264
potential lessee of the premises. He
must make a valuation without
taking into account the effect on the
rent of the competition from this
particular adjoining occupier because
in effect the adjoining occupier is not
in the market for the lessee's interest.
The same conclusion would result
for another related reason namely
that Maceys had agreed (in the lease)
to give up possession of the premises
for 21 years provided certain
conditions were complied with, had
agreed to a rent review at a time
when they precluded themselves from
taking possession of the demised
premises and must therefore be taken
as having agreed that in considering
the demand for the premises from
potential lessees the valuer should not
take them into account as they were
not in a position lawfully to take
possession of the premises.
Mncey limited
v.
Tylers limited —
Case stated — High Court (Costdlo
J.) — Unreported — 25 April, 1978.
SALE OF LAND — Option to
Purchase "month" meant hmar
month.
The Supreme Court (per Henchy
H.) upheld the High Court decision
of Costdlo J. (Gazette Jan./Feb.
1978) that in the absence of any
admissible evidence that a calendar
month was intended the word
"month" in an instrument such as a
lease meant a lunar month. The
Court was unable to accede to the
proposition that the rule was
outmoded or was unworthy of
recognition or application in the
Courts because die acceptance of
such a proposition would involve the
retroactive abrogation of the rule in
its application to existing situations.
Note:
The Court indicated that it
thought
statutory
amendment
affecting instruments made or
coming into operation after the
operation of the Act would be
welcomed by lawyer and layman
alike.
Vone Securities
v.
Gerard Cooke —
Supreme Court (Henchy J, with
O'Higgins CJ., and Kenny J.) —
Unreported — 24 July, 1978.
STATUTE INTERPRETATION —
HOUSING ACT 1969
Obligation of Corporate Body
Established under Statute to seek
Permission for Change of Use of
Habitable House.
University College, Cork, applied
to Cork Corporation, the Planning
Authority for the County Borough of
Cork, for temporary planning
permission for a period of seven
years in respect of the change of use
of premises No. 4 Brighton Villas,
and 1, Lucan Place, Cork. It was the
stated intention of University
College, Cork to utilize the property
for an interim period for academic
uses until a satisfactory land unit had
been consolidated for a major
building development. Following a
report by the acting planning officer
that in his opinion permission was
required under Section 2 of the
Housing Act 1969 for the use
otherwise than for human habitation
of a habitable house, the City
Manager made an Order under
Section 10 (a) of the Housing Act
1969 that the application should not
be decided until an application under
Section 3 of the Housing Act 1969
had been fully determined, and this
decision was conveyed by the
Planning Authority to University
College, Cork.
University
College,
Cork
considered that they were not obliged
to apply for permission by virtue of
the terms of Section 9 (1) (b) of the
Housing Act 1969 which provided
(inter alia) that the Act was not to
apply to the use otherwise for human
habitation of a habitable house where
the change of use was required or
authorised under or in pursuance of
any enactment or for any statutory
purpose. The powers of University
College, Cork were those granted by
the Charter granted to it on the 19
November 1911 under the provisions
of the Irish Universities Act 1908
subject to certain minor amending
acts and it was provided in the
Charter that University College,
Cork "shall remain and continue to
be one body corporate, with a
perpetual succession and a common
seal and with power, without any
further licence in mortmain, to take,
purchase, and hold, and also to sell,
grant,
exchange
demise
and
otherwise dispose of real and
personal property and shall be
subject to all the provisions of the
Irish Universities Act 1908".
Held
(per Hamilton J) that the change of
use was required by University
College, Cork to fulfil the obligations
placed on the College by the Charter
and the provisions of the Universities
Act 1908 "and consequently was in
pursuance of such enactment and for
such statutory purpose. Accordingly
there was no obligation on the
College to obtain permission' in
respect of the change of user under
the Housing Act 1969.
University College, Cork v. Cork
Corporation
—
High
Court
(Hamilton J.) — Unreported — 23
June, 1978.
STATUTORY RULES
— Whether the Rules for the
Government of Prisons 1976 Invalid
as bring In excess of powers given by
Sections 12 and 13 of General
Prisons (Ireland) Act 1877 —
whether the Minister for Justice can
in the interests of the security of the
State direct a Prison Governor to
prohibit or restrict certain persons
from bring admitted to a prison.
The Plaintiff sought a declaration
that the Rules for the Government of
Prisons 1976 (S.I. No. 30 of 1976)
("the 1976 Rules") were invalid as
being in excess of the powers in that
behalf given by Sections 12 and 13 of
the General Prisons (Ireland) Act
1877 ("the Act of 1877") and as
being repugnant to the provisions of
the Constitution.
The 1976 Rules were expressed to
have been made in exercise of the
powers conferred on the Minister by
Sections 12 and 13 of the Act of
1877 and adapted. Rule 2 of the
1976 Rules provided that the
Minister "may, where he considers it
necessary in the interests of the
security of the prison or of the State
and for reasons related to the
particular person, direct that a person
(including a prisoner's legal adviser)
— (a) shall not be admitted to a
specified prison, or (b) may be
admitted to a specified prison only on
such conditions or in such
circumstances as the Minister may
specify, and any such direction shall
be complied with by the Governor of
the prison concerned". Rule 3 of the
1976 Rules provided that the powers
conferred by Rule 2 "shall not be so
exercised as to prohibit or restrict the
visits from so many members of the
legal profession as to deny to a
prisoner a reasonable choice of legal