The Gazette 1974

in penology for nine months on full pay, and his duties

would then be carried out by the present holder, Sen-

ator Robinson. It is proposed to amend the scheme as

follows; The Professorship will be full-time; the ap-

pointee will be a graduate called to the Irish Bar; all

previous holders shall be eligible. The appointee will

be appointed by a specified Board, and must then de-

liver at least 60 lectures in Criminal Law, 30 lectures

in Penology, and 30 lectures in Criminology. The

salary of the Professor shall be determinated by the

Board. If the candidates who apply are not suitable,

the Board may appoint any suitable graduate. As this

appointment cannot be made in a hurry, Senator

Robinson can retain the Professorship until the ap-

pointment is made.

Re: Trusts of Richard Touthill Reid and of the

Reid Professorship; The Provost, Fellows and

Scholars of Trinity College v The Attorney Gen-

eral and others.

Kenny J.; Unreported; 21st June 1974.

Plaintiff's amateur status as an international horse

show jumper upheld

Th e plaintiff, a well known rider in show jumping

competitions, regards himself as an amateur in horse

jumping competitions outside Ireland. He owns a

large farm in Kilkenny, and is also director of Dublin

Bloodstock Ltd. The defendants are an unincorporat-

ed Association affiliated to the Federation Equestre In-

ternationale hereafter called F.E.I. Regulations pro-

vides that every rider, amateur or professional who

wishes to take part in competitions held under the

rules of the F.E.I, must be in possession of an annual

licence, which may be refused without assigning

reasons.

T h e plaintiff competes in competitions outside Ire-

land, and, when he does, he is paid a sum to cover

his expenses, and has occasionally got presents such as

a set of Waterford glass or a motor car, and even money

sometimes, although the plaintiff has no legal right

to receive them. In January 1974 the F.E.I, sent a

standard questionaires to be completed by riders who

applied for an amateur or a professional licence.

Article 144 of the F.E.I. Regulations defined an amat-

eur as one who does not attempt to make a profit

through competition, and whose main and substantial

sources of income are not derived from equestrian

sport. Amateurs wishing to ride competition horses not

belonging to them regularly must obtain permission

from the defendants. Article 145 of the F.E.I. Regul-

ations defines a professional as one who accepts re-

numeration for riding competition horses in show

jumping or dressage, deals in competition without the

permission of defendants, and receives allowances on

the scale of horses he rides. In reply to the query as to

what were his main sources of income he said they

were 80% farming, and 20% as a director. The plain-

tiff answered " No " to the question whether he had ac-

cepted remuneration for riding competition horses in

show jumping and dressage. In answer to the question

whether he had received payment for training compet-

ition horses or an allowance on the sale of horses he

rode, he said that he had received an occasional pr

ent when horses were sold so as to cover his

expenses-

Wh en the Defendants met on 10th May 1974, they

decided that, in view of the answers to the

questions,

they could only issue a professional licence to pl

air1

tiff; they appointed a sub-committee to interview

plaintiff who came to the same conclusion. The de-

fendants accordingly wrote a letter to that effect to the

plaintiff on 13th May. The plaintiff issued a plenary

summons on 28th May in which he sought a mandat-

ory injunction directing the defendants to issue

a n

amateur horse riding show jumping licence to h

llTl

Kenny J. directed that the defendants should h

ave

notice of the application.

It is the company, Dublin Bloodstock Ltd. whi

cfl

deals in competition horses, and the plaintiff does not.

but the plaintiff had not informed the sub-commit

tee

that he was only a director of the company. As re

gards payments made to plaintiff to reimburse him f°

travelling expenses, this is not remuneration, nor

payment for riding horses in competitions, which

a re

not rewards for services rendered. If a grateful own

[

cares to show his appreciation for the plaintiffs sk

in riding his horse by making him a present, he is n°

remunerating him. Accordingly Kenny J. did not gr

the injunction but gave a declaration that the pl

ain

tiff is an amateur within the Regulations of F.E.I. E

side will have to bear their own costs.

[Brennan v Equestrian Federation of Ireland

Kenny J.; Unreported; 30th May 1974.]

Order of County Council to grant planning

per miss

for the erection of houses void

On 5 November 1969 the second named defendan '

Traditional Homes Ltd., applied to the Dub"

County Council under the Planning Act 1963 for ou '

line permission to erect 34 houses on land in

S h a n k m

The application was objected to by many local

reslC

fe ^g'

one of whom was the plaintiff. On 13 November 19° '

Dublin Co. Council refused to grant this permission.

17 December 1969, the plaintiff and local resident

opposed the application for planning permission, wnf

Traditional Homes had appealed against the refusal- D

the appeal the plaintiff appeared and objected

half of 23 residents to the granting of permission. J"*

appeal was conducted orally by an Inspector of '

Department in February 1970, and the Inspector

mitted his report to the Minister one year l

a t e r

March 1971. Here the Inspector recommended that

fore any decision was made concerning drainag.

arrangements, trial holes should be opened and the s

tested for soakage by the County Council. If th

tests proved satisfactory, permission to build not m

than 13 houses on the site should be granted subject

specified conditions. This Report was not made ava

able to the plaintiff or to the residents. Howe

arrangements were made between the County CouO

and Traditional Homes to carry out the tests for

°'

U1IU

l l U U U l V i m i

A AVillVJ VV VUi A J WUV HIV IViJW -

• 1\

conditions and soakage, on 28 May 1971. In the opi&

of engineering experts the soil conditions were found

be satisfactory, and therefore the septic tanks could

c uic sc iiL. l uiva

i ,

used without risk of injury to the public. According-

the County Council on 21 September 1971 made *

order granting outline planning permission for the c

struction of 27 houses. The basis of the plaintiff's act

174