The Gazette 1982

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE Vol. 76, No. 2 In this issue . • . March 1982 Comment

The Rent Acts The recent decision of the Supreme Court declaring the provisions of the Housing (Private Rented Dwell- ings) Bill 1981 to be unconstitutional is a mixed blessing. While the extension of the uncertainty which both landlords and tenants have faced since the Courts' earlier decision striking down the Rent Restrictions Act is ob- viously unsatisfactory, the opportunity which now arises to bring in a more satisfactory bill should not be lost. The temptation for the Government simply to exclude the offending Section 9 of the 1981 Bill from a new measure should be resisted. It must be said in passing that the inclusion of Section 9 in the 1981 Bill was somewhat optimistic since, in the words of the Minister in the Seanad, it provided "an important subsidv for tenants in the initial years of the new tenancy" - a sub- sidy from the landlords, not from the State; an exten- sion, indeed, of the kind of subsidy which had called the constitutionality of the Rent Acts into question; a sub- sidy, too, of little benefit for the tenant, being both modest and short-term. The State must now face up to a full subsidy to support such tenants as are unable to pay a market rent, in line with the commitment given in the Seanad by the Minister to "assistance for those peo- ple who are in difficulty or on low incomes and who find themselves in financial difficulty as a result of the increase in rents." A number of the provisions of the 1981 Bill will need to be looked at before they are rein- troduced. Section 4 of the 1981 Bill gave the Court the power to fix "the terms of every tenancy" but without giving any guide lines to the Court as to what the terms of a tenan- cy might be, other than as to rent. Some indication might well be given as to the line which the Courts should take on the liability for repair and insurance of the dwelling. It is not at all clear whether Section 5 of the 1981 Bill confers a general right on both landlord and tenant to reapply to the Court to vary the terms of a tenancy where they have already been fixed by the Court, as op- posed to a right to apply to the Court to have the rent reviewed. Should not the illegimate offspring of the tenant's spouse (as well as such offspring of the tenant) be in- cluded within the meaning of a "member of a family"? The need for a careful review of the 1981 Bill is high- lighted by the comment in the Supreme Court's judg- ment that some of the provisions are "suprisingly unclear". "The Court drew attention to the omission to re-enact provisions equivalent to those in Sections 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the 1960 Act, which would appear to be essential for the proper operation of any rent control code." It is further hoped that any new Bill will not be rushed through the Dail under the guillotine procedure - as was the 1981 Bill. • 27

Comment

27

Value Added Tax - Property

29

Fiat Justitia

35

Myths and Myth Conceptions about

Word Processing

37

Practice Notes

39

For Your Diary

39

Contractual and Statutory

Remedies for Misrepresentation

40

Book Review

44

Correspondence

45

Professional Information

46

Executive Editor: Mary Buckley Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman John F. Buckley Gary Byrne William Earley Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney Advertising: Liam Ó hOisin, Telephone 305236 The views expressed in this publication, save where other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.