The Gazette 1973

constitutional rights and that the agreement between the unions concerned and the company to procure or cause his dismissal was an actionable conspiracy because the means employed constituted a breach or infringe- ment of his constitutional rights. In his view, Mr. Meskell was entitled to such damages as might, on inquiry, be proved to have been sustained by him Article 40 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to form associations or unions and he was of opinion that this guarantee also carried with it the implicit guarantee of the right of disassociation. "In my opinion the High Court order should be set aside," he added. (Irish Independent, 20 December, 1972). He was in the vicinity of an unguaurded edge of a very sharp saw and he suffered a 2 inch transverse laceration on his right hand. He was brought to hospital, and a plaster cast was applied to the hand, which was removed eight weeks later. The statement of claim, delivered in January 1970, set out the injuries sustained in detail. The defendants issued a notice of motion in November 1970 that the action be remitted to the Dublin Circuit Court, on the ground that, on the medical evidence, no jury would award more than £600 damages. The motion to remit was heard by Murnaghan J. in December 1970, who granted it. The full Supreme Court, per Fitzgerald J, considered in detail the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the defendants, and came to the conclusion that a jury could award more than £600 damages. The appeal was consequently allowed and Murnaghan, J's decision was reversed unanimously. [Maycock v Legg Bros. Ltd.; Supreme Court; un- reported, 10th March, 1972] Solicitor's Seminar on Family Law in Waterford Case will not be Remitted to Circuit Court if Plaintiff thought entitled to more than £600 The plaintiff, a schoolboy of 15, was cleaning out sawdust in defendant's factory in July 1968 while employed there temporarily during summer holidays.

if not available, of the Court must be obtained to the marriage of all parties under 21 years of age. Catholic marriages are regulated by the law of that Church, but, in the case of the Church of Ireland and the Presby- terian Church, the 1844 Act preserves the prior grant- ing of authorised licenses. Nullity: If anyone alleges that his or her marriage contract did not fulfill the aforementioned fundamental require- ments, such a party should proceed in the High Court for a Declaration of Nullity, which can be obtained when the marriage is void or voidable on grounds of (a) want of age; (b) previous marriage; (c) unsound- ness of mind; (d) impotency or wilful refusal to con- sumate; (e) fraud; (f) duress. A decree of nullity is the only legal remedy which allows the party to re-marry. The leading Irish case relating to impotency and non- consummation is McM v McM and Mck v McK (1936) I.R. Nullity may be pronounced if the wife refuses a medical inspection, and the Court is satisfied that the marriage was never consummated E.M. v. S.M. 77 I LTR (1943). Desertion is not an answer to a suit for restutition of conjugal rights— Dunne v Dunne (1947) I.R. For a case of fraud and fear, see Griffith v Griffith (1944) I.R. Impotency need not be physical, but can be psychological Van D. v O.K. —1960 un- reported; but in such a case, medical inspectors usually examine the parties and send reports to the Master. Judicial separation: Article 41 of the Constitution relating to the pro- tection of marriage is then quoted. If there is no case for nullity, the only remedy available is judicial separation—divorce a mensa et thoro —which can only be obtained on the grounds of adultery, physucal or mental cruelty, or unnatural practices. Collusion, con- donation and connivance are bars to a decree of separation—such as continuous co-habitation after 15

The fifteenth Seminar organised jointly by the Society of Young Solicitors and the Provincial Solicitors Association on the topic of Family Law, was held in the spacious grounds and pleasant surroundings of the Ardree Hotel, Waterford, on Saturday 4th and Sunday 5th November 1972, and attracted an attendance of more than 200 members. FAMILY LAW On Saturday morning, 4th November, Mr. Robert Barr S.C., delivered a lecture on "Family Law in the Higli Court in the Irish Republic". He stated that there had been recently a frightening increase in husband and wife litigation after the breakdown of Marriage, particularly in guardianship of infant application; there are now 2 or 3 guardianship applications in every Master's list; this appears to be due to the fact that traditional standards are crumbling fast, and, but for the prohibition of divorce, matrimonial pro- ceedings would be increased. Let us first consider Matrimonial Legislation. The following are the fundamental requirements of a legal marriage : (1) The parties must be of sound mind (2) They must freely consent to the marriage (3) Each party must be unmarried at the time of marriage (4) Each party must be of a marriageable age— i.e. 16 years under the Marriages Bill 1972. (5) The parties must not be related to each other within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity—otherwise the marriage is void. If a party alleges that he or she was married by mistake, provided there was no reality of consent, then the marriage would be void. But an adopted child within Irish Law is not deemed to be within the prohibited degree of consanguinity with the adopted parent. The consent of the parents, or.