88 / 196
UNREPORTED IRISH CASES
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT — APPLICATION
FOR SECONDARY JUDGMENT GRANTED
The facts of this case have been set out in 1970
Gazette
at page 78. The dispute, as to the requirements of the
Motor Insurers Bureau were referred to the Minister
for Local Government on 27th April 1970, and the
Minister eventually decided on 15th December that
the requirements of the Bureau were reasonable. The
only remedy available to a claimant, under the Agree-
ment of 1955 relating to the Bureau, arises out of an
mjury to himself, or the death of a dependant within
Section 47 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961. In the
Agreement the words, "the plaintiff shall take all
reasonable steps" must be read as if the words "to
obtain judgement" had been added — this means
a judgment of whatsoever kind available to the plain-
tiff at the relevant date. The plaintiff has the statutory
right under Sec. 38 (2) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961,
to apply for a secondary judgment for £3,701 against
McCartney. This is the first application for a secondary
judgment under the Act. No order was made on the
plaintiff's application for costs, but costs were awarded
to the defendant McCartney against the plaintiff.
[Gillespie v Fitzpatrick and McCartney
(No. 2);
conclusion of judgment; Murnaghan J.; 1971.]
REVENUE
In the event of a claim relating to turnover tax based
on negligence only, and which includes a penalty of
£100 under Section 58 of the Finance Act, 1963, which
the Revenue Commissioners can claim, judgment on a
High Court summary summons may be marked on the
Central Office, if the defendant does not enter an
appearance. If, however, no claim was based on a
charge that the returns were made fraudulently, the
circumstances would require that procedure by plenary
summons should be adopted. So held by Kenny J.
In this case, the defendant, a grocer in Kells, was
sued for £847, and the plaintiff alleged that the defen-
dant had negligently made inaccurate returns in the
computation of turnover tax. The plaintiff issued a
summary summons, which, due to the non-appearance
of the defendant, they tried to mark in the Central
Office. The officials declined to proceed without the
direction of the Judge.
\Bedford v Butler;
unreported; Kenny J.; 26th April
1971.]
REGISTRATION OF PARTIES-
ELECTORAL ACT IS HELD TO BE VALID
The President of the High Court, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe,
yesterday refused to give a declaration that certain
provisions of the Electoral Act, 1963, are repugnant to
the Constitution and invalid.
The President granted, however, a declaration sought
by members of the Christian Democrat Party of Ireland
that an appeal board which sat to consider an appeal
from a decision of the Registrar of Political Parties
refusing to register the party as a political party was
wrongly constituted and that its decision was therefore
invalid.
The action was brought by Seán D. Loftus, chairman
and leader of the Christian Democrat Party of Ireland,
and eight other members of the party.
They had sought a declaration that certain provisions
of the Electoral Act, 1963, were repugnant to the
Constitution.
They also sought a declaration that the decision of
the Registrar of Political Parties was wrong in law and
invalid; a declaration that the party was a genuine
political party within the meaning of Section 13 (2) of
the Act; a declaration that it was organised to contest
Dáil or local elections; a declaration that the body
purporting to be an appeal board was wrongly consti-
tuted and its decision was therefore invalid or, alter-
natively, a declaration that the decision of the appeal
board was wrong in law and invalid.
The hearing had lasted for three days and the Presi-
dent in his judgment yesterday said that the ground on
which the Act was alleged to be unconstitutional was
briefly that the section of the Act objected to give to
political parties which had gained representation in
Dáil Eireann prior to or had representation on the date
on which the Act came into force, rights which were
not given to other political parties. The parties repre-
sented in Dáil Eireann were to be put on the register of
political parties automatically while parties not repre-
sented had to apply to be put on the register and could
only be put on if the Registrar was of opinion that the
party was a genuine political party and that it was
organised to contest a Dáil election or a local election.
Discrimination
It was said that this provision of the Statute amounted
to a political discrimination and that this was in contra-
vention of Article 40 of the Constitution in so far as
that Article guaranteed to citizens the right to form
associations and unions and it was specifically provided
that laws regulating the manner in which the right of
forming associations and unions may be exercised should
contain no political, religious or class discrimination.
The President said that in his view the provisions of
the section did not infringe the guarantees given by the
Constitution in Article 40.
The historical accident that some parties were repre-
sented in Dáil Eireann and accordingly entitled to more
or less automatic registration as distinct from other par-
ties having perhaps identical political objects but not
represented in Dáil Eireann and therefore not entitled
automatically to registration did not in his view amount
to a political discrimination.
The President said he thought political discrimination
in Article 40, Section 6 (2), of the Constitution was
intended to refer to a discrimination being made against
citizens forming unions on the grounds of their political
objectives and that it was not intended at all to apply
to the accidental circumstances arising here, that some
parties were represented on the material date; and
others were not, and that irrespective of the political
objectives of the unregistered parties, all sorts of unreg-
istered parties had to comply with the same require-
ments in order to get on to the register.
"Genuine Party"
In his view, the plaintiff's claim that the statute was, in
the respect mentioned, unconstitutional and invalid
failed.
89