266 / 298
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981
authorising the Corporation to carry
out the works. On 15 July 1976 the
District Justice of Dun Laoghaire
made an Order directing T. & J.
Nolan to carry out the specified
works within seven days and author-
ising the Corporation to carry out the
works in default.
On 1 December 1977 notice of
application for an Order under
Section 3 (8) (a) of the 1964 Act was
sent to T. & J. Nolan. A further
application to the same effect was
sent to T. & J. Nolan on 13 January
1978. On 26 January 1978 the
District Justice made an Order
pursuant to Section 3 (8) (a) of the
1964 Act prohibiting the repair or
letting of the premises (i.e. "struc-
ture") in question or the carrying out
of any works on the site until pay-
ment to the Corporation of the sum
of £1,289. Although that Order was
apparently made on 26 January
1978 it was not signed by the District
Justice until 8 May 1978 and it was
directed to T. & J. Nolan. The parti-
culars of the Order were entered in
the Register maintained by the
Corporation (pursuant to Section 8
(3) (c) of the 1964 Act) on 31
January 1978 and on 15 May 1978
a copy of the Order was served on
the registered office of T. & J. Nolan.
The Prosecutors had a full
planning permission for certain
works on the premises and in August
1978 they commenced the construc-
tion of foundations for those works.
On or about 25 August 1978 the
Corporation engineer produced to the
Prosecutors a copy of the Order of
the District Justice dated 8 May
1978 (but apparently made on 26
January 1978) and intimated that if
work continued the persons respon-
sible would be liable to imprison-
ment. It was established to the Court
that Rochford, from whom the Prose-
cutors purchased the premises, had
the same registered office and had
identity of directors with T. & J.
Nolan but no evidence was forth-
coming that T. & J. Nolan had at any
time any interest in the premises.
The Prosecutors contended that
the Order of the District Justicc made
on 26 January 1978 was bad, firstly
because it was made in the absence of
the Prosecutors and without their
having an opportunity to be heard
and, secondly, because the Corpora-
tion had at the time of obtaining of
the Order failed to serve the then
owner of the premises, Rochford.
The Corporation contended that
on the information available to them
the apparent owners were T. & J.
Nolan and that the identity of
address of T. & J. Nolan and Roch-
ford raised a presumption that Roch-
ford were aware of the making of the
Order of 26 January 1978 and that
the Prosecutors could either by
inspecting the Register (maintained
under Section 8 (3) (c) of the 1964
Act) or by raising ordinary requisi-
tions on title, have obtained infor-
mation in regard to the making of the
Order and that they could not now
challenge the Order because at a time
when they had no interest in the lands
they were not served with the notice
of application to have it made.
HELD (per Finlay P.)
(1) That the prohibition provided
for in Section 3 (8) (a) of the 1964
Act applied to the premises and site
and not only to the then owner of the
premises and site, even if it was the
default of the owner which gave rise
to the prohibition. The provision for a
Register of such orders to be kept
open for public inspection was incon-
sistent with any other interpretation.
(2) That the mere fact that the
person who at a particular time
owned premises ("structure") was
not represented atlhe District Court
hearing on which an application for
an Order pursuant to Section 3 (8) of
the 1964 Act was made would not be
a ground for invalidating the Order.
A person subsequently purchasing
the premises or site in respect of
which an Order under Section 3 (8)
(a) of the 1964 Act had been made
took the premises or site subject to
and affected by the Order.
The Court had not before it any
information as to what evidence had
been adduced before the District
Justice at the hearing of 26 January
1978. If the facts deposed by the
Corporation were as adduced to the
District Justice they appeared to the
Court to provide ample
prima facie
evidence of proof of ownership by T.
& J. Nolan. The Court considered
that there was an almost inevitable
presumption from the facts proved
that the directors of the true owners,
Rochford, who were also the direc-
tors of T. & J. Nolan, must have
been aware of the District Court
proceedings and of the Orders made
and that by failing or refusing to
assert the true position on behalf of
T. & J. Nolan (that T. & J. Nolan
were not the true owners of the prem-
ises) the said directors were mislead-
ing the Corporation, and, to a certain
extent, the Court, into the belief that
the true owner was before the Court.
Notwithstanding that the service of
the Notice of disrepair on the owner
was a clear condition precedent to the
exercise by the Sanitary Authority of
its powers under the 1964 Act the
Court refused to set aside the Order.
(3) That the Order was an Order
good upon its fact and that all that
was really asserted before the Court
and to a certain extent proved was
that the District Justice probably
came to an incorrect conclusion as to
who had then been the owner of the
premises in question. The incorrect
conclusion of fact by an inferior
Court was not subject to review by
way of
certiorari.
Conditional Order of
certiorari
discharged.
F. & C. Limited v. District Justice
Hubert Wine - High Court (per
Finlay P.) - 23 July 1979 -
unreported.
CUSTOMS DUTY—SALE OF
GOODS BY RECEIVER
Whether customs duty was payable
by a receiver of a company on certain
goods sold by him on the home
market which had been imported by
the company without payment of
duty with the authority of the
Revenue Commissioners, because the
goods had been imported merely for
processing in Ireland before
exporting them, when processed, for
sale abroad.
The Plaintiff was appointed by the
Northern Bank Limited on 2
February 1976 to be receiver of the
property of Vecta International
Limited. Vecta had imported certain
goods without payment of customs
duty, with the authority of the
Revenue Commissioners pursuant to
Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1932,
as amended by Regulation No. 11 of
the
European
Communities
(Customs) Regulations,
1972,
subject to conditions contained in
Notice No. 1181 and an appendix
thereto, as it had imported the goods
merely for processing in Ireland
before exporting them, when
processed, for sale abroad. The
Plaintiff realised such of those goods
as came into his possession by selling
them on the home market.
Under Clause 9 (2) of the said
III