325 / 736
for
the purpose of
the Companies Acts
(e.g.
notices, resolutions, etc.) but may not draw or
prepare the memorandum or articles of associa
tion. The preparation of the last mentioned docu
ments
is
restricted
to practising barristers and
solicitors. It is well established that the expectation
of gain, directly or indirectly is sufficient to bring
the agent within the provisions of the Acts.
In the issue of
Business and Finance
of 19th
January 1968 Mr. J. E. Nolan the director of a
company known as Irish Formations Ltd. adver
tised a new service under the heading of "cut
price companies'. More recently another company
operating
from England known
as Company
Documents (Europe) Ltd. whose registered office
is
in London has published a letter signed by
Mr. Bryan Essenhigh in
Business and Finance
of
llth July 1969. Following this, Company Docu
ments
(Europe) Ltd.
circulated
to chartered
accountants in Dublin and elsewhere a letter with
a form of
instructions and specimen forms of
memorandum and articles of association. Examina
tion of the forms of memorandum and articles of
association published by
Irish Formations Ltd.
and Company Documents (Europe) Ltd. reveals
that they are identical, with exactly the same
variations from the statutory forms in the Com
panies Act 1963. Both sets of articles contain
clauses excluding the operation of various regula
tions
in
table A. There are regulations deal
ing with lien, general meetings, directors and de
claration of interests which are completely new
or variations of corresponsing regulations in table
A and both sets of memorandum of association
contain similar provisions amending or adapting
statutory form. Furthermore the forms issued by
Company Documents (Europe) Ltd. contain side
notes and directions and persons using the service
are informed that the customer should either draft
his own principal objects clause or may obtain
on request a suitable precedent from Company
Documents Ltd.
The papers in both these matters have been
submitted to Senior Counsel who advises that the
activities of both companies
if carried out
in
accordance with the published literature would
contravene the relevant provisions of the Solici
tors Act 1954 as amended by the Companies Act
1963. Counsel has advised that the service offered
by Irish Formations Ltd. and Company Docu
ments (Europe) Ltd. as outlined in the explana
tory literature emanating from these companies
involves a contravention of
the statutory pro
visions and that solicitors availing of the service
may themselves become involved in a breach of
the statutory provisions. Counsel in his opinion
states that the instructions forms issued bv these
companies clearly indicate that they are taking
instructions from the customer to enable the com
panies to draw and prepare the memorandum
and articles of association.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Extradition—Offence
connected with Political
Offence
1. Bourke's assistance
in
the escape of George
Blake was not given with a view to furthering
the political aims of the Soviet.
2. English Attorney-General has given undertak
ing not to prosecute Bourke for harbouring a
spy. The President is
thus satisfied that the
Plaintiff was not to be prosecuted for this—as
it is not a political offence.
3. The question whether
this was an offence
connected with a political offence—mentioned
in Article 5 of European Convention on Ex
tradition was next considered. It was held that
there could be no limitation of this phrase in
Section 50 of Extradition Act 1965—as Blake
was convicted of a political offence (espionage),
consequently
the ofence of helping him
to
escape was undoubtedly an offence connected
with a political offence.
4. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to be re
leased under Section 50 of the Extradition Act
1965 and could not be extradited to Britain.
Note—This decision was affirmed by the Supreme
Court on 31st July 1969, but the reasons have
not yet been given.
(Scan Bourke v. Attorney-General, High Court,
O'Keeffe, P., 3rd February 1969, unreported).
Peace Commissioner's Summons—Jurisdiction on
face
Davitt, P. held on a case stated, that a summons
was undoubtedly a judicial process, but it was not
a record of the judicial determination to issue a
summons. Rule 30 of the District Court Rules
1948 lays down the circumstances when a Peace
Commissioner can issue a summons. Rule 22 deals
with the form and content of summonses, and
refers back to Form 4 in the Schedule of forms;
this form of summons does not state the district
or area, and only refers to the signature of the
Justice or Peace Commissioner. If the rule-making
authority intended that the summons should on
its face show the jurisdiction of the person who
issued
it,
the rules and forms would have so
provided. As they never did so provide, it can only
be that it was never intended that the summons
45