Judge to rule on validity of water case

THE High Court was asked yesterday to decide whether a demand for water charges sent to the home of a Co Dublin man was "bad" …

THE High Court was asked yesterday to decide whether a demand for water charges sent to the home of a Co Dublin man was "bad" because it did not also include the name of his wife, who is joint owner.

Mr Justice Geoghegan reserved his decision.

Mr Dermot Lynch, of Berwick Rise, Swords Manor, Co Dublin, received a demand for £255 from Fingal County Council for water supplied for domestic purposes in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. The demand was addressed to "Occupier or Dermot Lynch".

Following legal argument at a Swords District Court hearing last April, Judge Timothy Crowley decided to ask the High Court's assistance on a number of questions.

READ MORE

Judge Crowley asked the court to decide whether Mr Dermot Lynch alone was "the consumer whether his wife and any other residents were consumers"; and whether, if more than one person came within the statutory definition of "consumer", it was necessary for the authority to serve a demand on each person coming within the definition.

Yesterday Mr Martin Giblin SC, for Mr Lynch, pointed out that water rates had been abolished recently. This claim arose from arrears due. In pre1995 legislation a council was entitled to charge for water "supplied" for domestic purposes. After 1995 the charge was payable by "the consumer".

Mr Giblin said the 1937 Interpretation Act provided that "every word importing the singular shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it also imported the plural ..." and that "consumer" therefore must include husband and wife.

Mr James Macken SC, for the council, said the legislation had to have some practical effect; it was to recover water charges and the council had to be able to collect that money in some manner.

The claim being made was that the £255 could not be recovered because it was disclosed only at the district court hearing that there was a joint ownership of the house.

Mr Justice Geoghegan said that the demand was sent to "The Occupier or Dermot Lynch". Mr Macken said it was sufficient and the proceedings brought by the council were valid.