54 / 328
CUIRT BREITHIUNAIS CHUARDA
(CIRCUIT COURT OF
JUSTICE)
Dublin Circuit
County of the City of Dublin
Pursuant to Order 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of the
Circuit Court 1950 as amended by the Circuit Court
Rules 1954, I, the Circuit Judge assigned to this
Circuit, being satisfied that service (in accordance
with Rule 4 of Order 10 of the said 1950 Rules) of
Civil Bills and other Originating Documents of the
Circuit Court by a duly appointed Summons Server
is not practicable in the Summons Server's area of
Balbriggan in this Circuit, do hereby direct that for
the period of three months from this date, or until
the post of Summons Server in that area has been
filled, whichever event shall first happen, service of
any such Civil Bills or other Originating Documents
in said area may be effected by a duly appointed
Summons Server to another area in said Circuit, by
registered post.
Dated this izth day of October, 1961.
J. CONROY,
Circuit Judge.
IRISH DIGEST 1949-1958
To be published shortly, Price £700 net.
also available
IRISH DIGEST 1939 1948
£880 net.
or
if ordered
with
the above
£5
5
o net.
IRISH DIGEST 1919-1928
£i o
o net.
IRISH DIGEST 1894-1918
£1 10
o net.
Cash with orders—cheques payable to:
The
Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Ireland,
Law Library, Four Courts, Dublin, 7.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
Actionforprofessional negligence.
In
Dunn
v.
Paris (Blissard, Barnes and Stowe)
the
plaintiff was the personal representative of a deceased
client of the defendants a firm of solicitors. The
client had consulted the defendants in 19 5 2 and again
in 1956 about professional business. In 1957 she told
a member of the firm that she wished to buy an
annuity with the proceeds of the sale of a house. The
solicitor told the client that if she purchased an
annuity in a certain form she would deprive her
relatives of the advantage of participating in her
estate after her death. She repeated her instructions
and the solicitor then went about obtaining quot
ations. He subsequently realised as the result of a
medical report that she suffered from suspected
cancer. He did not disclose this information to her,
although it would have a material effect on the value
to be obtained from the purchaser of an annuity
owing to the shortening of expectation of life. His
reason was that the client might suffer severe mental
anguish if the medical information were disclosed
by him. The annuity was purchased and the client
died shortly afterwards. The personal representative
sued the firm of solicitors on behalf of the estate for
alleged negligence in allowing the client to purchase
the annuity and thereby deprive the estate of the
money paid therefor. It was held by the High Court
that the defendant firm owed no duty to the personal
representative or the estate but solely under a duty
towards the client. The solicitor had considered the
situation having regard to all the circumstances
including the mental shock to the client if informed
that she was suffering from an incurable disease. He
had come to a right decision which was made in good
faith and was in no sense negligent or one involving
a breach of duty.
Judgement was given for the
defendants.
(Dunn
v.
Paris (Blissard, Barnes and Starve)
1961.
44 Sol.Jo.932).
Commission—purchaser unwilling to pay asking price
—agent not effective cause of sale.
In
Prior v. Rawe
(1961) 178 E.G. 485, the plaintiff
estate agent claimed commission on the sale of a
house from the vendor who contended that the
purchaser had contracted to buy at less than the
asking price, and that the plaintiff had not been the
effective cause of the introduction. The Court of
Appeal held, allowing the appeal, that the estate
agent was entitled to recover commission.
Property in Ireland—order in aid—revenue debt.
(Eire}
(Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act,
1872 (35 e^ 36.
Vtct.c.
58),
s.
71).
In Re Gibbons, ex p. Walter (1960) Ir. Jur. Rep.
60, G. was adjudicated a bankrupt in England and the
official receiver applied to the High Court of Justice
(Bankruptcy) in Eire for an order in aid of the
English High Court in respect of certain property in
Eire belonging to the bankrupt. An oral order was
made but before it was passed and perfected it
became apparent that the bankruptcy matter had
been initiated by the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue in England. Walsh J. held that s. 71 of the
Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872,
is
enabling and discretionary but not mandatory, and
that it was the policy of the courts in Eire not to
permit jurisdiction to be invoked for the purpose of
48