8 / 270
Plaintiff claimed that the machine was still
its property, and demanded its return or
payment in full of the monies outstanding.
McWilliam J.
held
that, as there was only
one article sold, its resale was most
unlikely to be contemplated by either
party. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had
retained the property in the refrigerating
machine until payment in full was made
— JULY/AUGUST.
Harte v. Telecord Holdings Ltd. Plaintiffs
appeal from decision of Redundancy
Appeals Tribunal that the employment of
the Plaintiff before August 1962 could not
be regarded as continuous employment.
Plaintiff claimed that she had worked
continuously with Defendants from April
1945 to August 1977. As a result of her
mother's death in February 1961, the
Plaintiff became run down. Her doctor
advised her to get away for a while. The
doctor had issued a Certificate granting
her one year's sick leave from August
1961 to August 1962. The Defendants
alleged that they had not received it, but it
was presented before the Tribunal.
McWnUam J.
held
that it was clear that
the cause of the interruption in Plaintiffs
Employment was sickness, and that
consequently
Plaintiffs
employment
should have been regarded as continuous.
Tribunal's decision reversed — MARCH.
H.S. and S.G. v. Estates Management and
Development
Agency
and
Rosario
Investments Ltd. By contract dated 15
February 1974, first Plaintiff agreed to
sell to first Defendant in trust for second
Defendant the premises 3 Dame Lane,
Dublin, for £60,000. A deposit of £6,000
was paid. Completion was to take place
on I March 1975, but Defendants failed
to complete. On 10 December 1975 there
was
a Court Order for Specific
Performance, with a stay for one year,
subject to payment of interest and
payment of Costs of the action and the
sale. Some payments of interest were
made, but ceased in August 1976. As
Defendants could not pay, the Court fixed
7 February 1977 to issue an order
forfeiting the deposit and rescinding the
sale. Before it could be heard Mr. S. died
on 3 February 1977. In September 1977
the premises were burned down, and the
Defendant stated he could do nothing to
pay the balance of the purchase money. In
1979. the Defendant's solicitor offered a
settlement and to pay the balance due,
which was rejected. The Defendants
sought to reconstitute the suit.
Costdlo J.
held
that there were no
circumstances in the case by which he
should not follow the general rule.
Accordingly he ordered the Defendants to
pay: (I) The balance of the purchase
money.
(2)The additional sums agreed to be
paid at the December 1975 settlement.
(3) Interest at rate of 15% from 10
August 1976 to 14 January 1980.
(4) All outgoings and costs of previous
proceedings — NOVEMBER.
L. GJ. v. T.M., J.R. and W.N.
Held by
McWilliam J.: (1) That the deed of 8
September 1970 (purportedly granting a
wayleave to extend a sewer from Plaintiffs
garden) had to be discharged because the
Defendant Trustees were holding the
property on trust for the Purchases. The
position could not be altered without his
consent.
(2) That there was no grant of a
wayleave by the Vendor and he had no
power to make such a grant.
(3) That the Vendor and his Solicitor
were in full possession of all relevant facts.
A provision to grant the wayleave should
have been in the contract, and was not
implied.
(4) That the Defendant Trustees were
not entitled to compel the Purchaser to
accept the reservations or to make the
grant required.
Minister for Agriculture v. Concannon - In
answer to specific questions, Finlay P.
held:
(1) The evidence of a veterinary
surgeon without further proof that he was
such was
prima facie
evidence to establish
that he was a veterinary surgeon.
(2) The evidence of the veterinary
surgeon in the case was sufficient to
establish a
prima facie
case that he was
lawfully qualified to practise veterinary
surgery in the State — NOVEMBER.
Minister for Agriculture v. Norgro Ltd. The
Minister summoned Defendant for failing
to display vegetables in conformity with a
Community Directive on 30 October. In
the District Court, it was contended by
the Defendant that the Summons did not
bear on its face the date of issue to show it
had been issued within 6 months, in
accordance with S. 10 of the Petty
Sessions Act 1851. The Minister relied on
the endorsement of service to prove that it
had been served within 6 months. The
District
Justice
held
he had
no
jurisdiction. Upon a case having been
stated to the High Court, Finlay P.
held
that:
(1) The time limit arising under S. 10
was a matter of defence for the
Defendant, and did not go to the
jurisdiction of the District Court to
entertain the summons.
(2) Therefore the Minister should have
been allowed to prove the issue of the
Summons by referring the endorsement of
the Summons.
(3) The District Justice had full
jurisdiction to hear the Summons —
OCTOBER.
Murphy and Garvey v. Eastern Health
Board.
Held by
Costello J.: (1) That the
rights of the two Plaintiffs, who were
senior executive officers in the Eastern
Health Board, and in particular the right
to remuneration, were governed by
statute, namely by S. 14 (4) of Health Act
1970. In making his determination, the
Chief Executive Officer must act in
accordance with the directions of the
Minister who had absolute discretion.
(2) The Plaintiffs were legally entitled to
the additional remuneration they actually
received from 3 March to 18 August
1972, but not after that date, because the
Department of Health had refused to
sanction it after that date — APRIL.
Myler and Myler v. Mr. Pussys Nile Club
Ltd., (2) Ledwlch, (3) Amsby, (4)
Keogan and (5) Allied Irish Banks.
Premises in Parnell Square, Dublin, held
under Lease for 900 years, with no
covenant
for insurance.
The first
Defendant, by resolution of 30 September
1977, authorised the third Defendant to
deposit the Title Deeds of the premises,
with third Defendant's Bank, which was
made the same day. The Bank notified the
Sun Alliance Insurance Group of this
deposit on 31 January 1979. There was a
fire insurance with that Company for
£5.000 issued by the second and fourth
Defendants to September 1979. Fire
damaged the premises in March 1979. On
27 July 1979 the two Plaintiffs, who were
owners of the landlord's interest in the
premises, obtained judgment against the
First, Second and Fourth Defendants for
£12.000 for repairing the premises, and
£1.900 costs.
The matter came before McWilliam J.
by way of a Garnishee Order attaching
the £5.000 payable to the Defendants by
the Sun Alliance under the fire policy. The
Bank, as equitable mortgagees, opposed
this application of Plaintiffs, as it had an
alleged interest in the premises. The
Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank had not
given any notice requiring the insurance
money to be applied to the discharge of
the mortgage debt, and that, in any event,
the Plaintiffs had priority in their claim.
McWMlam J.
held:
(1) That the Bank had
a statutory right under S. 23 (4) of the
Conveyancing Act 1881 to have the
insurance money applied towards the
discharge of the mortgage debt.
(2) That S. 23 (4) applied to equitable
charges by deposit of title deeds as well as
to mortgages by deed. Judgment for
PlaintifTs — OCTOBER.
In Re Michael O'Connor deed. — Eileen
O'Connor v. Maurice O'Connor and
Margaret Vaughan — Construction of will.
Held by
D'Arcy J.:( DThaton 5 May 1975,
the deceased was of sound mind and
disposition.
(2) That the Will of the deceased dated 5
May 1975 was duly executedin accordance
with the Succession Act 1963.
(3) Th at the deceased k new and approved
of the content of thewilldated 5 May 1975.
Accordingly Letters of Administration
with the Will of the Deceased dated 5 May
1975 were ordered to issue to the Plaintiff
— JUNE.
OTiara v. Flint Troika Ltd. and Hamburg
Investment Co. Lands in Crosshaven sold
to first Defendant, subject to the right of the
Vendor to reacquire part of the lands if it
was necessary for planning purposes to
demolish the building. The second and third
Defendants began proceedings against Mr.
Flint, the first Defendant, for specific
performance to convey the lands which
were settled by a Consent Order. The right
to re acquire was upheld on a subsequent
resale of land by Mr. Flint to Troika Ltd.,
the purchaser with prior notice of that right,
even though that right had by then been
previously assigned by the Vendor to
Troika Ltd. McWilliam J. and the Supreme
Court unanimously dismissed the Vendor's
injunction proceedings which had been
taken on the ground that Troika Ltd.
intended demolishing buildings on the re-
acquired lands — APRIL.
Re Palgrave Murphy Ltd. and Companies
Acts. Amount of £39.47 claimed by
respective Ministers in respect of unpaid
cheques in a liquidated company as
preferential debts under S. 285 of
Companies Act 1963.
Held
that the
amount claimed was not due by the
company under the Social Welfare Acts,
but was money due for the purchase of
insurance
stamps. Accordingly, the
Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was not
entitled to priority, but only as an ordinary
unsecured creditor — MAY.
Pattison v. Institute of Industrial Research and
Standards. Plaintiff was a technician
employed by Defendants. In January 1970,