120 / 266
7* The Rules o f the High Court and Supreme
Court made on the 17th day o f November 1942
are hereby revoked.
8. These Rules may be cited as the High Court
Rules (No. 2), 1953.
DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL AND
TRANSFERS
UNDER
SMALL
DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS.
A discussion recently took place between repres
entatives o f the Dublin Solicitors’ Bar Association,
and an officer o f the Dublin County Council In
cases of transfers o f property upon which there is
a Mortgage under the Small Dwellings Acquisition
Acts which is not being paid off, it will facilitate
the County Council if the first letter in the transaction
applying for consent to the transfer is written by
the transferor’s Solicitor giving full details relating
to the transferee. I f this is done then all future
correspondence will be sent direct to the solicitors
acting for the parties.
It is felt that the foregoing change in procedure
will be o f considerable assistance to practitioners
in the Dublin area.
LAND REGISTRY APPOINTMENTS.
T
he
following appointments have been made in
the Land Registry, Department o f Justice, con
sequent on the retirement o f Mr. Maurice J. L.
MacGowan from the post o f Deputy Registrar
and Chief Examiner o f Titles :—
(1) Mr. Desmond McAllister, Solicitor, to be
Duputy Registrar and Chief Examiner o f Titles.
(2) Mr Bernard J. Clare, Solicitor, to be Examiner
o f Titles and
(3) Mr. Patrick J. Smyth, Solicitor, to be Senior
Legal Assistant.
Mr. Maurice J. Lysaght MacGowan, Barrister-at-
law, Deputy Registrar and Chief Examiner o f Titles
in the Central Office o f the Land Registry has
retired from that post after having completed 40
years service in the Land Registry.
On the occasion o f his retirement the Registrar
and members o f the staff in making a suitable
presentation to him testified to that unfailing
courtesy with which Mr. MacGowan always placed
his great knowledge and experience at the disposal
not only o f the staff o f the Registry but o f Legal
Practitioners who had occasion to consult him.
DUBLIN SOLICITORS’
BAR ASSOCIATION.
T
he
Annual Meeting o f the Association will be
held at the Solicitors’ Buildings, Four Courts,
Dublin, on Friday 9th October 1953 at 8 p.m., and
not on Friday 8th October as incorrectly stated in
the Ju ly issue.
DECISION
OF
PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST.
Time Limited for Renewal o f W rit can
be extended.
Is a writ o f summons, which by the terms o f Order
8,
Rule
1,
o f the Rules o f the Supreme Court, does not remain in
force fo r more than twelve months from the date o f issue
,
valid, where a Defendant enters a unconditional appearance
to a writ which has been served on him out o f time, and
subsequently issues a summons to set aside the service o f
the writ
?
Yes, said the Court o f Appeal (Singleton and
Denning L .J.) reversing the Master and Barry J.,
because the appearance to such a writ is a step in the
action and amounts to a waiver by the Defendant
o f the irregularity in the service of the writ, which
prevents him from setting up the defence that such
service was bad in law.
(In this case, a widow, whose husband had been
killed in an accident in October 1950, commenced
an action against the Defendants under the Fatal
Accidents Act 1846 in October 1951 by a writ which
was not served until more than twelve months after
the date of issue, in October 1952.
The first Defendants entered a conditional appear
ance which was subsequently set aside. The second
Defendants entered an unconditional appearance ;
the present proceedings resulted from the motion
to set such appearance aside).
Per Singleton L .J :—“ It has been held over a
long period o f years that Order 64, Rule 7, enables
the Court to renew j writ even though application
is not made until after the expiration of 12 months
laid down under Order 8, Rule x. The position
under Order 8, Rule 1 is that the writ is not in force
for the purpose of service after the 12 months period
has run ; it is still a writ.
Per Denning L .J.—'“ In my opinion, the service
of the writ after the 12 months was not a nullity, but
an irregularity which was waived by the uncon
ditional appearance.”
(Sheldon
v,
Brown Bayley’s Steel Works Ltd. and
Dawnays Ltd.—(1953) 3. W.L.R. 542.)
Defendant’s Costs. — “Bullock” Order.
Is a
“
Bullock
”
Order requiring a first defendant against
whom judgment in an action has been obtained to pay the
costs o f a second defendant
(against whom the action has
J*