196 / 736
elude
the changes made by
the Finance Act,
1967, to be available to the public in a fortnight.
A further supplement to the stamp duty volume
which will
have
regard
to
the
stamp duty
provisions of
the Finance
(Miscellaneous Pro
visions) Act, 1968, is in the course of preparation
and will shortly be sent for printing. Steps will
be taken to ensure that printing is carried out
promptly.
I agree that it is desirable that the supplements
should be published as soon as possible after the
passage of the relevant legislation and the Revenue
Commissioners will make every endeavour to en
sure that this is done.
Yours sincerely,
Charles J. Haughey
Gerard Sweetman, Esq., T.D.,
30 Lower Baggot St.,
DUBLIN 2.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Appeal from disciplinary committee
The appellant was a veterinary surgeon of good
character who had been in pracitce for 16 years.
In the course of treating a dog for a rubber ball
lodged in
the gullet,
the appellant misled
the
owner, who showed some emotional upset at the
fact that any incision in the throat had been made
at all, into the erroneous belief that a deep and
serious operation had been carried out by cutting
right into the passage of the oesophagus, when
in fact there had merely been an incision into the
skin. The disciplinary committee of
the Royal
College of Veterinary Surgeons found the appel
lant guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional
respect and removed his name from the register.
On appeal :—
Held,
that the appeal under the Veterinary
Surgeons Act, 1966, was by way of rehearing in
the same sense as an appeal to the Court of
Appeal from the judge alone and a decision on
fact by the disciplinary committee could be re
versed only where it appeared from the transcript
of evidence or other admissible matter that the
committee had made a mistaken assessment in
arriving at their decision on fact; and that al
though their Lordships felt some concern as to
whether removal from the register might not in
the circumstances be too severe a penalty, pro
fessional misconduct was a matter for the dis
ciplinary committee and the appellate court should
not intervene unless satisfied that the committee
had made a mistaken assessment; it was in any
event open to the council to re-admit the appel
lant.
Decision of the disciplinary committee affirmed.
(Lawther Royal College of Veterinary Sur
geons [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1441).
Solicitors' Inexcusable Delay
By writ dated 21st January, 1965 the first plain
tiff who was then an infant and his father claimed
damages for personal injuries sustained by the in
fant on 22nd January, 1962 when a car driven
by the defendant collided with the infant plain
tiff on his motor cycle. On 22nd May, 1962 the
defendant was found guilty of driving her car
without clue care and attention. The plaintiffs
had originally instructed country solicitors. There
were negotiations and offers were made, but there
was
no
settlement.
In
1965
the
defendants
wanted a further medical examination. In June
1965
the plaintiffs changed their solicitors. No
notice of change of solicitors was given until
December, 1967; and there was over 2 years
delay in notifying the defendant of the plaintic's
wish to proceed with the action. On 9th May,
1968 Fisher J. dismissed the defendant's appli
cation on appeal from Master Lawrence to strike
out the plaintiff's claim due to prolonged and in
excusable delay in prosecuting the action. The
defendant appealed.
In the Court of Appeal Lord Denning MR
said
that
the plaintiffs'
solicitors' delay after
change of solicitors had been prolonged and in
excusable. No notice of change of solicitors or of
grant of a legal aid certificate had been given for
a considerable time. Liability in the case was not
in substance in dispute. The court would rarely
dismiss an action
for want of prosecution
if
liability was not in dispute :
Gloria v. Sokologg
and Others (1968) 112 S.J. 422. Fisher J. had
felt that there was no serious prejudice and there
was no sufficient ground for interfering with his
decision. In substance the case could be fairly
tried and dealt with. The appeal should be dis
missed.
(Kruschandl (late an infant) and another v.
Bulkeley 112 S.J. p. 763).
Striking out of action because of inordinate delay
The plaintiff was
injured on 23rd November,
1962 when in the course of his employment by
the defendant as a builder's mason he fell from
the roof where he was working. Six months after
the accident, the plaintiff reported it to his trade
54