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 n 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 ,y 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 re 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 J . 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- th 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 P l e x of Fishing and Shooting Lodges am a n c i l l a r y residential club facilities planned on an ^musement parkland. The plaintiff stated that he P e 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 42