The Gazette 1967/71

LAND REGISTRATION EXTENSION OF

resulting in a substantial decline chemists' shops to the public detriment. In Re Medicaments Reference, Restrictive Practices the number of in

COMPULSORY AREAS Title Requirements

Court, 5/6/70. Road Traffic

A plant hire company who were under the mistaken impression that the Greater London Council had dis pensed with the requirement that they give notice when they proposed to use very large vehicles with heavy loads on roads in the council's area as they had not been previously prosecuted for failing to do so, were guilty of offences contrary to the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1969 and section 64(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. George Cohen 600 Group Ltd. v. Hird, Q.B.D., 3/6/70. Tax Self propelled mobile concrete mixers taxable at lower rate. Defendants charged that in Cork in April 1968 they did use a motor lorry which was untaxed under the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952, and that under Section 13 of the Roads Traffic Act, 1920, they had incurred a treble penalty of £1,815- The tax had expired at the end of 1967 and the defendants had sent a cheque to Cork County Council tendering the same amount as in the previous years, i.e. the sum of £53 taxed on horsepower, as set out in Section 1 (61 (c) of the 1952 Act: the cheque was returned on the ground that the vehicle should be taxed by weight, under Section 1 (5) of that Act, and that consequently the duty payable was £605. District Justice O'Donovan holding that the lower tax was payable dismissed the summons on the merits in Cork District Court, but, at the request of the prosecution, he stated a case to the High Court, as to whether he had arrived at the correct decision. Henchy J. held that the Justice's opinion was erroneous and that the higher tax on a weight basis was chargeable. The defendants appealed. Held by the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh C. J., Walsh and Budd J.J.) that the appeal should be allowed on the ground that the lower tax taxed on horsepower under Section 1 (6) (c) of the 1952 Act was annlic- able. Even if the vehicle was a lorry in which a tank of water of 200 gallons, and a drum capable of re volving gravel, cement and sand, had been built, it does not follow that the vehicle was constructed specifically for that purpose; it was constructed for the mixing or agitation of concrete, and could do so whether the vehicle was moving or stationery. If, on the wording, Section 1 (5) of the Act of 1952 could in a general way apply to this vehicle, then Section 1 (6) (c). as amended by the Finance Act 1960. is much more specific, inasmuch as it speaks of some machine or workshop which is built in as part of the vehicle or otherwise attached thereto. However in the circumstances the District Justice should have convicted the defendants of not having taxed the vehicle bv im posing as penalty three times the amount of the lower tax. (i.e. £159). (Attorney-General (Power) v. Tohn Wood Ltd. — unreported — Supreme Court — 7th November 1969).

Following the extension by Ministerial regula tions of the areas of compulsory registration to Carlow, Meath and Laois, solicitors must give serious considerations to the requirements of the Registrar of Titles on applications for registra tion of purchasers with absolute title. A purchaser who accepts a title which will not satisfy the Registrar may find himself in the position that the equity note cannot be discharged within the period of six months prescribed by section 25 of the Registration of Title Act 1964. The section provides that in any case in which registration becomes compulsory a person shall not acquire the estate or interest purported to be conveyed under a conveyance or transfer on sale unless he is registered as owner of the interest within six months after the date of the instrument. In other words the purchaser of a freehold or leasehold estate who fails to get himself registered with absolute title within six months from the date or the purchase whether by public auction or private treaty will acquire no legal estate in the property. These provisions raise the nightmare of serious dangers to purchasers and headaches for their legal advisers. It is well known that in the past, purchasers have been willing to accept consider ably less than the statutory marketable title to property in the towns covered by the new compulsory provisions. In such cases, unless the Registrar of Titles is willing to modify his require ments, a purchaser accepting the title of an existing vendor may find himself caught by section 25 of the Act. He will have parted with the purchase money but may not get himself registered and his title may be void. Representa tions have been made made by the Society to the Registrar of Titles drawing attention to the difficulties mentioned but as yet no assurance has been received as to the steps which the Registrar will take to avoid these difficulties. The position is particularly serious where property is put up for sale by public auction. In such case the pur chaser and his solicitor must accept the title offered in the conditions if he wants to acquire the property. The President in his statement at the Ordinary General Meeting of the Society on May 14th drew attention to this position. 38