32 / 262
Mr. Justice Kenny said that it was a very unusual
and interesting action.
{The Irish Times,
12/12/1972.)
[Moran and Kinsella v. Matthew-Sills and Power.]
Court award for sacking upheld.
A limited appeal against the award of £9,694
damages and costs to Douglas William Victor Glover,
the former production and technical director of Lincoln
and Nolan Ltd., was dismissed by a two-to-one majority
in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Glover, formerly of Kilcoole, Co. Wicklow, had
brought the proceedings against his employers for
wrongful dismissal.
Mr. Glover had sued B.L.N. Ltd., Lincoln and Nolan
Ltd., Lincoln and Nolan (Sales) Ltd., and Irish Motor
Factors Ltd., Lower Baggot St., Dublin, claiming
damages for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.
The High Court trial had lasted 22 days and Mr.
Justice Kenny was told that Mr. Glover had joined
Lincoln and Nolan in 1957 and had been dismissed
in June, 1966, following a report to the board of B.L.N.
Ltd., by Mr. G. C. V. Brittain, executive vice-chairman
of B.L.N., which was formed following the amalgama-
tion of Lincoln and Nolan and Brittain (Dublin) Ltd.
Mr. Justice Kenny found that, while Mr. Glover
had been guilty of serious misconduct and neglect, the
decision of the board to dismiss him without a hearing
was contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Yesterday, in the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Walsh,
in his judgment, dismissed the limited appeal, a decision
with which Chief Justice Cearbhall O Dalaigh agreed.
A dissenting judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice
Fitzgerald.
It was stated then, on behalf of the parties, that it
had been agreed by B.L.N, that, if they lost this limited
appeal, the matter would go no further. Accordingly,
the Court affirmed Mr. Justice Kenny's order.
{Irish Independent,
19/12/1972.)
[Glover v. B.L.N. Ltd.; Supreme Court; unreported;
19 December 1972.]
Appeal fails in harbour deaths case.
An accident at Galway docks on January 11th, 1967,
when six people returning from a wedding reception at
Salthill lost their lives when their car was driven into
the docks, was recalled in the Supreme Court.
In a reserved judgment, the court dismissed an
appeal by Galway Harbour Commissioners against a
decision of Mr. Justice Butler in the High Court
awarding Mrs. Bridget Walsh, Gort, Co. Galway, a
total of £6,000 damages and costs on her own behalf
and that of her dependants.
She had sued the Harbour Commissioners arising out
of the death of her husband, Mr. John Walsh, the
driver of the car, alleging that the Commissioners had
been negligent.
It was stated in the High Court that Mr. Walsh had
been attending a wedding reception at Salthill and was
returning home in the evening darkness when he. ap-
parently lost his way while taking a short-cut through
the docks area.
Mr. Justice Butler found that both Mr. Walsh and
the Harbour Commissioners had been 50 per cent each
at fault for the accident and assessed total damages at
£6,000, entering judgment for Mrs. Walsh and her
dependants for a total of £3,000 and costs on this basis.
The Harbour Commissioners appealed against this find-
ing.
In his judgment Chief Justice O Dalaigh said that
50 per cent was the least the trial judge could have im-
posed on the Commissioners and said they had been
fortunate not to have been called upon to shoulder a
heavier share of the burden. Mr. Justice Walsh agreed
with the Chief Justice's judgment.
In a dissenting judgment, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said
that Mr. Walsh was the author of the accident which
had been caused by his failure to keep a proper look-
out. The trial judge should have acceded to the appli-
cation of the Commissioners to non-suit Mrs. Walsh.
[Walsh v. Galway Harbour Commissioners; Supreme
Court; unreported; 19 December 1972.]
Placc of detention does not exiit under Children's Acts
so bench decision wrong—Prison order invalid.
In the High Court, Dublin, yesterday, Mr. Justice
Finlay held that a youth could not have been held in
a place of detention provided by the Children's Act,
1908, as directed by District Justice Breathnach on
last November 16th for the most fundamental reason
of all—that no such place existed.
He held that orders made by District Justice Breath-
nach in the Children's Court sentencing the youth to a
months' imprisonment because "the defendant was of
so unruly a character that he could not be detained in
a place of detention in safety" were invalid.
The youth had challenged the validity of the district
justice's order and on last November 24th Mr. Justice
Finlay directed the Governor of Mountjoy Prison to
certify the grounds of the youth's detention and he
admitted him to bail.
Yesterday Mr. Justice Finlay made an order quashing
five orders made by the district justice relating to the
imprisonment of the youth and discharged the appli-
cant from his bail recognisance.
In a reserved judgment, Mr. Justice Finlay said it
had been admitted in earlier proceedings that the ap-
plicant was a "young person" within the meaning of
the Children's Act, 1908. He had appeared before the
District Court charged with assault with intent to rob
and with assault causing actual bodily harm. He had
been remanded in custody by District Justice Kennedy
to Mountjoy Prison until November 14th, by an order
which certified that he was of so unruly a character
that he could not be detained in a place of detention
in safety. On November 14th he was further remanded
in custody to St. Laurence's, Finglas West, until Novem-
ber 16th.
St. Laurence's, said Mr. Justice Finlay, was a place
of detention for the purpose of detaining young persons
on remand but not for the purpose of detention after
sentence. On November 16th, the youth had pleaded
guilty before District Justice Breathnach in the Chil-
dren's Court and was sentenced to one month's im-
prisonment.
No express evidence, said Mr. Justice Finlay, had
been adduced before District Justice Breathnach as to
unruliness of character on the part of the youth, but
the District Justice had before him the certificate issued
by District Justice Kennedy.
Mr. Justice Finlay said : "The last very important
fact which was established before me was that there
was not on November 16th, 1972, nor has there been
since then a place of detention provided under Section
108 of the Children's Act, 1908, for the Dublin Metro-
politan District, the purpose of which was the detention
of young persons after sentence."
The legality of the applicant's detention and the
31