ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
17 May 1999
Before: FC Hamon Esq Deputy Bailiff,
and Jurats Quérée and Le Breton
IN THE MATTER OF the Dwelling Houses (Rent Control) (Jersey) Law 1946; and
IN THE MATTER OF a Representation, dated 13 January 1999, by Daisy Hill Real Estates, Ltd., seeking judicial review of decisions made by the Rent Review Tribunal, concerning the rentals payable for properties known as Perquage Court, St. Lawrence, and Spencer Close, Beach Road, St. Saviour.
REPRESENTATION by Terry Reginald Pipe, Francis Buckley, Martin Francis Flaherty, Brian Charles Crosby, Barbara Otero-Deveney, Anibal Garces De Castro, Kenneth John McCreanney, Joyce Madeleine Naidoo, Peter John Brennan, Janis Lopez-Chames, Dorothy Smith (née Wilson), Beatrice Elizabeth Holly (née Angell), Peggy St. George (née Le Monnier), John Holt, Rosemary Barbara Walsh (née Le Noel), Karen Joy Vibert, Karen Paddy Festou, Brenda Anne Festou, Brian John Hacquoil, and Michael McSherry, Tenants of either Perquage Court, or Spencer Close, seeking leave to intervene in the proceedings.
Advocate CGP Lakeman for the Tenants
Advocate P Matthews for the Rent Control Tribunal
Advocate WJ Bailhache for Daisy Hill Real Estates, Ltd
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Mr Lakeman, for the tenants, has said that his clients will not be calling evidence and will be ready for trial on Wednesday, if the case has to come before Court and if we allow them to intervene in any event.
The Tribunal has apparently conceded that it is in error, therefore arguments will have to go back to them. It is only on the basis on which the reconvened Tribunal will reach its decision that the dispute arises. Whilst the tenants position may be tenuous - and we agree entirely with Advocate Bailhache on that point - it does seem to us a little invidious for them to have received a letter from the Crown inviting them to participate; to have attended a meeting at the Town Hall; to have been told that the Housing Committee would pay part of their expenses; to have instructed Advocate Kelleher to the point of him being able to file a representation and then to be told by this Court that they have no standing in the dispute.
It may complicate the matter if they are allowed to intervene and we have not had an opportunity to look at the law on this matter, but one thing that we are not quite certain about is why the tenants have not brought representative proceedings under Rule 44(1). It may not be too late to adopt that course and it may simplify the matter considerably.
We hope that strenuous negotiations may yet bring about an agreement on the terms of reference back to the reconvened Tribunal. But if the case has to proceed on Wednesday we are in little doubt, because of the background to this application - that is because the Crown has in fact spoken to the tenants and encouraged them to take these proceedings - that they should be permitted to continue to intervene and we so order.
No Authorities