Lord Iveagh takes back the market - Reversion Clause

godtabh

Can some one explain this to me?

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2020/12/09/your-only-man-2/

Would this be a common clause?

Victor

Such a clause in some form is likely in most leases in Ireland. The main lease types are "fully repairing and insuring" and "internally repairing and insuring". The apparent condition of the market would suggest breach of contract.

However, assuming the original lease from the early 1900s is still in play, the form of the lease / clause may be quite different to modern ones. For example, it could be a ground rent lease that stipulated the tenant "build and operate a market for the sale of X". Given that the market appears to be vacant for an extended period, again breach of contract would seem to come into play.

nuac

Great to see landlord operate this clause. More power to them

Claw Hammer

Some of these clauses are still around. In many cases the rent was small and there was a covenant as to user. Quite often the landlord was being charitable. Similar issues were reported to have arisen with lands at Elm Park which arose when a change of use was proposed. The site of the former military barracks in Castlebar is also supposed to be subject to some covenant.

Victor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Some of these clauses are still around. In many cases the rent was small and there was a covenant as to user.

I'm not sure if they were restricted to specific users (given that many ground rent leases were for 100+) years, more to specific uses.

This can be important for those developing non-residential properties. While residential properties benefit from a relatively benign regime due to the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Acts, non-residential properties do not benefit. The ground rent landlord can charge substantial fees for development, whether by having the tenant buy out the lease or otherwise.

L1011

There is a hospital somewhere - I thought it was St Lukes but Google gives me nothing - that has a double clause in its lease that it is to be used for medical purposes, and that the board running the organisation on site cannot be controlled by the Catholic Church. Interesting clauses on donated/bequested land and properties are far from rare.

hullaballoo

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure if they were restricted to specific users (given that many ground rent leases were for 100+) years, more to specific uses.

This can be important for those developing non-residential properties. While residential properties benefit from a relatively benign regime due to the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Acts, non-residential properties do not benefit. The ground rent landlord can charge substantial fees for development, whether by having the tenant buy out the lease or otherwise.

Here, the word "user" means the use to which the property the subject of the lease is put.

"The restrictive covenant as to user which apparently forms the basis for Lord Iveagh's reversionary interest was as to user." That's the legal version. What it means in practice is that the market has to be developed as a market or else the property can be taken back.

Or at least so it seems.

Peregrinus

L1011 wrote: »

There is a hospital somewhere - I thought it was St Lukes but Google gives me nothing - that has a double clause in its lease that it is to be used for medical purposes, and that the board running the organisation on site cannot be controlled by the Catholic Church. Interesting clauses on donated/bequested land and properties are far from rare.

Mmm. I'm thinking this one would be void as contrary to public policy and/or the Equal Treatment legislation. It's not the different from a clause stipulating, e.g., that property could never be let to Jews.

Thoie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. I'm thinking this one would be void as contrary to public policy and/or the Equal Treatment legislation. It's not the different from a clause stipulating, e.g., that property could never be let to Jews.

Would it be permissible to have a clause saying the board couldn't be controlled by any religious organisation - not picking on any particular one?

Are there any legal ways to go about saying "I don't want this building/facility used for any religious purposes"?

nuac

There was a similar provision re provision of sites for national schools. Those were often provided to the proposed trustees by a long lease from the original landowner e.g. the local landlord for provision of a school with a provision that the premises reverted to the landlords sucsesessor in title if the premises ceased tg be used as a school,
I am aware of one case where the landlord's successors proposed to take possession when the school was discontinued. There was an amalgamation of schools in the area. The Commissioners for Charitable Donations and Bequests directed that any sale proceeds for the old school be invested in the new school for the area. That satisfied the oiginal landlord's successors.

Peregrinus

Thoie wrote: »

Would it be permissible to have a clause saying the board couldn't be controlled by any religious organisation - not picking on any particular one?

Are there any legal ways to go about saying "I don't want this building/facility used for any religious purposes"?

Well, those are two completely different things. I, a non-religious organisation, could use my house for religious purposes by, for example, hosting house church meetings in it. Conversely a religious organisation might rent premises which it uses for non-religious purposes - e.g. sub-letting the premises on commercial terms to generate an income.

So the first think you have to do is make up your exactly mind what it is you want.

In the hospital case mentioned above, the suggestion is that the landlord included two covenants in the lease - first, that the premises be used to conduct a hospital and, secondly, that the hospital not be conducted by an agency of the Catholic church.

The first covenant is not a problem. It's common for landlords to include covenants about the permitted or forbidden uses of the property. Usually these are there to protect the landlord's commercial interest, and/or the amenity of neighbouring properties (which the landlord may also own). So, e.g., it's common in a commercial lease to provide that the premises are not to be used for a trade that generates smell, noise, niusance, etc, or that would create insurance problems for the building. Sometimes there's a charitable/public benefit element to the covenant, as in the case of the Iveagh Markets, where there's an intention to benefit the community by having the market as a community facility (though there's also possibly benefit to the landlord, if he owns many other properties in the area - they can be let at a higher rent if the area has good community facilities).

The second covenant is more problematic - a covenant not to sublet residental premises to Jews or Catholics obviously betrays antisemitic or anti-Catholic bigotry; the same would be true of a covenant not to sublet commercial premsises to a Jewish/Catholic business/organisation. And if you expand that to any religious business/organisation, on the face of it that looks just like broader bigotry. I would think this is almost certainly going to be void as a matter of public policy.

If you focus your concerns a bit more carefully, you might have a better chance of getting away with it. For example, in the case of a hospital your concern might be to ensure that the medical services available in the hospital are not limited by Catholic medical ethics. So you could let the property for use as a hospital, provided the services available in the hospital include female sterilisation and termination of pregnancy, subject only to any constraints imposed by law. You can defend this on the grounds that you consider the availability of these services to be a matter of public benefit, in much the way that the Iveagh Trust considers the availability of a market to be of public benefit.