82 / 266
chargeable only with the fixed duty of 1 0 provided
that the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that
the second conveyance is a
bona fide
conveyance
to an Irish body corporate in pursuance o f an
antecedent arrangement whereby the property was
acquired for the benefit o f the company. I f necessary,
the Act could provide for a maximum interval of
time between the conveyance to the promoters
and the conveyance by them to the company. As
the granting o f the statutory concession would be
in the discretion o f the Revenue Commissioners
there would be no opportunity for fraud or evasion.
(2)
The attention o f the Council has also been
drawn to another matter. Property is frequently
acquired by trustees for religious communities and
charities. Since the war many religious communities
include individual members o f different nationalities
some of whom may not be Irish citizens. Solicitors
acting for trustees in such cases find some difficulty
in advising the trustees that they are entitled to
give the certificate under the Finance (No. 2) Act
J947
to the effect that all the beneficiaries are Irish
nationals. This appears to be a matter which was
not forseen when the Act was passed. The sub
mission o f the Council is that the next Finance Act
should include a provision that where property is
bought by trustees for a charity or a religious
community
ad valorem
duty should be charged at a
rate not exceeding 3% notwithstanding that some
o f the members o f the community or the bene
ficiaries o f the charity may not be Irish citizens,
provided that the Commissioners are satisfied that
the property is purchased
bona fide
for the objects
of the charity or the community concerned.
ITEMS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
Where a widow sues under the Fatal Accidents Acts
before obtaining letters o f administration to a deceased
intestate w ill the proceedings necessarily be invalidated by
reason o f the fa c t that the plaintiff is incorrectly described
as “ widow and administratrix
”
?
No. The Plaintiff was one o f the dependants of
her deceased husband and brought an action for
damages in respect o f his death by accident. She
had not obtained letters o f administration when
the writ was issued but described herself as “ widow
and administratrix ” o f the deceased and in the
endorsement o f the writ claimed damages under
the Fatal Accidents Acts and the Law Reform
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. The proper
endorsement under the Fatal Accidents would
have been to describe the plaintiff as widow, and
under the Law Preform (Miscellaneous Provis
ions) Act 1934, which does not apply in Ireland,
it would have been correct to describe the applicant
as administratrix if a Grant had been obtained. It
was conceded that the writ was a nullity so far as
the claim under the Law Reform Act was concerned.
As regards the claim under the Fatal Accidents
Acts the Court held that the words “ widow and
administratrix ” described the plaintiff’s personal
status and did not declare the capacity in which
she brought the action and that a fair and gram
matical interpretation o f the endorsement was that
the claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts was brought
by her as widow and the claim under the Law Reform
Act as administratrix. The proceedings under the
Fatal Accidents Acts were accordingly not inval
idated. Note, however, that this decision was
based on the Fatal Accidents Acts and the Law
Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and
that the last mentioned Act does not apply in Ireland.
(Stebbings v. Holst & Co. Ltd., 1953. 1 W.L.R. 603.)
A submission to arbitration provided that an appeal
might be taken from the award provided that within
14
days from the date o f the award notice o f appeal should
be given in writing to the place o f business o f the other
party and that notice should be deemed to have been re
ceived not later than
24
hours after posting. Was notice
posted within the prescribed time but incorrectly addressed
and received by the other party after the expiration o f
14
days a valid notice o f appeal ?
No. The arbitrator’s award, in favour o f the
plaintiffs, was dated Ju ly 30th. On August 12th
the defendants posted a letter giving notice of
appeal to the plaintiffs, addressed to the plaintiff’s
by name and at an address in the town where they
carried on business, but the street and number
given in the address were in fact those o f another
company with a similar name carrying on business
in the same town. That company forwarded the
letter to the plaintiffs but it did not reach them until
after the expiration o f 14 days from Ju ly 30th.
The Court held that 14 days from the date o f the
award would have expired at midnight on August
13th 14th. The question arose as to the meaning of
the provision that notice “ shall be deemed to have
been received not later than 24 hours after the same
has been so sent or left.” The provision would
seem to indicate that a posting 24 hours before
midnight on August 13 th/14th would be a good
compliance whether the document was actually
received or not. I f the letter had been addressed to
the Company in the town where they carried on
business without any street or number that might
have been sufficient, but when a notice was sent
with a wrong and misleading address so that the