HC Deb 27 November 1882 vol 275 cc95-6
MR. GIBSON

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Chief Land Commissioners, in giving judgment in the first appeal heard at Clonmel, on November 6th 1882, laid it down that for the future the rule of the Court as to the costs of appeals from the Sub-Commissioners would be that the costs would follow the result, i.e., that the successful party would be entitled to be paid his costs by the opposite party; but this rule would be subject to the following exception, that the landlord would not be entitled to costs against the tenant unless he succeeded in restoring the old rent which was payable before the Sub-Commissioners sat; whether the Commissioners tried forty-six cases in the county Tipperary, and adopted the rule all through; and, whether, in only two cases out of the forty-six did they restore the old rent, and give the landlord costs; although, in several other cases, their own valuer agreed with the landlord's valuer in valuing the lands considerably above the old rent?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, the Land Commissioners, when sitting in Clonmel in the early part of this month, expressed their intention, when dealing with appeals, to adopt the following practice with regard to costs, reserving to themselves entire liberty where they deemed it right to vary the practice in its application to particular cases. First, when the Court confirms the judicial rent, the appellant, whether landlord or tenant, pays costs to the opposite party. Secondly, when the landlord appeals, and the Court restores the old rent, the landlord gets his costs against the tenant. To entitle the landlord who appeals to his costs it is not essential that the old rent should be entirely restored. Thirdly, when the judicial rent is varied on appeal, each party, as a general rule, bears his own costs; but the Court, in a proper case, would not hesitate to give costs against either landlord or tenant when on special grounds it seemed just to do so. The Land Commissioners tried 46 cases at Clonmel, and followed the above practice in them all. In three cases out of the 46 they restored the old rent and gave the landlord his costs. In several other cases both the Court valuer and the landlord's valuer placed a value on the lands above the old rent.