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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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