The Gazette 1974

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.] 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 Increase of airport landing fees made by Minister in respect of Shannon Airport after 1 April 1969 valid.

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.] ] 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 Rights of minority shareholder upheld on ground that directors conducted the company in an oppressive manner.