Blake v. A.G. [1981] IESC 1; [1982] IR 117; [1981] ILRM 34 (29th June, 1981)

Blake v. A.G. [1981] IESC 1; [1982] IR 117; [1981] ILRM 34 (29th June, 1981)

The Court held that Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 (as amended) constituted an unjust attack on the property rights of landlords of controlled dwellings, contrary to Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution. The statutory scheme was arbitrary, unfair, provided no compensation, allowed no review, and was not justified by the common good. The restrictions on rent and recovery of possession were not based on social necessity or the means of tenants or landlords, and the legislation was not limited in duration. Both Parts II and IV were struck down as unconstitutional.

Citation
[1981] IESC 1
Parties
Plaintiffs: Dorothy Blake, Bridgid Elizabeth Downes, Eileen McAleese, Nuala Ladd and Patricia Hodgins; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge (appeal) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 (as amended) declared unconstitutional and invalid.
Legal Topics
Rent Control, Property Rights, Unjust Attack on Property, Constitutional Validity, Landlord and Tenant Law
Constitutional Law Property Law Rent Control Property Rights Unjust Attack on Property Constitutional Validity Landlord and Tenant Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorothy Blake, Bridgid Elizabeth Downes, Eileen McAleese, Nuala Ladd and Patricia Hodgins

Plaintiffs

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge (appeal) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 (as amended) constitute an unjust attack on property rights contrary to Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the statutory scheme for rent control and restrictions on recovery of possession is arbitrary, unfair, and unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 (as amended) constituted an unjust attack on the property rights of landlords of controlled dwellings, contrary to Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution. The statutory scheme was arbitrary, unfair, provided no compensation, allowed no review, and was not justified by the common good. The restrictions on rent and recovery of possession were not based on social necessity or the means of tenants or landlords, and the legislation was not limited in duration. Both Parts II and IV were struck down as unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 (as amended) declared unconstitutional and invalid.

Orders

  • Declarations granted as to the invalidity of Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960 (as amended)