389 / 406
GAZETTE
JULY/AUGUST
1985
tenants who occupied floors above
the Ground Floor
(3) the Lease under which the
De f e ndan ts held the building
imposed only a duty on the
Defendant to share a service charge
in relation to parts of the building
used by the Defendants in common
with others and accordingly because
the Defendants had no use or
enjoyment of the lifts and the
Plaintiffs had always known this, the
Defendants could not be held
responsible for a Service Charge in
relation to the lifts.
The Court HELD:—
The cost of replacing the two lifts, a
portion of which was included in the
service charge payable by the tenants to
the Landlord, was clearly included in the
4th Schedule to the Lease and the
Defendants were therefore liable on foot
of this provision. It was irrelevant as to
whether or not the Defendant Company
actually used the lifts. The lifts were part
of the overall services provided in the
building and the tenants were bound by
the covenant in the Lease to pay the rent
reserved thereunder and the service
charge referred to therein. Accordingly,
the Defendant Company was liable for
the sum attributable to the replacement
of the lifts. The sum due was calculated
and duly certified and notified to the
Defendants in accordance with the terms
of the Lease and the Plaintiff Company
was at liberty to enter judgment against
the Defendants for the entire sum and
were entitled to claim interest at 11%
pursuant to the Courts Act, 1981.
The Norwich Union Life Insurance
Company
-v-
Gestetner Duplicators
Limited - High Court (perHamilton J.), 14
February, 1984 - unreported.
Eric Brunker
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT
Drunken Driving — Section 49(3) 1978
Act — Dismissal by District Court — Case
Stated — whether entry by Garda to
Defendant's house lawful — whether
subsequent evidence obtained admissible.
The Defendant had a charge of driving
with excess alcohol in his body dismissed
in the District Court. The Defendant was
not interviewed by the Gardai at the scene
of the commission of the alleged offence
but a short time later the Gardai called to
his home and were admitted by the
Defendant's sister. The Gardai were
s u b s e q u e n t l y a d m i t t e d to t he
D e f e n d a n t 's b e d r o om. Here the
Defendant was arrested under Section
49(6) of the 1961 Act as amended. The
Defendant's sister then resisted and
obstructed the Gardai who eventually
took the Defendant to the Garda Station.
The Defendant co-operated in relation
to the giving of a sample. The defence
which was raised successfully on the
Defendant's behalf before the District
Justice was that the Gardai were not
entitled to enter the Defendant's
dwellinghouse without permission, and
even if admitted by the Defendant or by
some other person with authority to do
so, they were bound to leave immediately
on being requested to do so, otherwise
they would become trespassers on the
property. It was not contended that their
original entry was unlawful, but it was
submitted on behalf of the Defendant
that once his sister opposed and resisted
the arrest, this was tantamount to a
revocation of the permission previously
given to the Gardai to enter the premises
and that they were then bound to leave
the house without effecting the arrest.
The District Justice dismissed the case
and the Prosecution appealed by way of
case stated to the High Court.
The Court HELD that the Gardai
having been lawfully admitted to the
house and to the bedroom of the
Defendant were at that stage entitled to
exercise such powers of arrest vested in
them by law and were not trespassers
when they proceeded to do so. Therefore
the arrest and everything that followed
was lawful and the case should therefore
be referred back to the District Justice to
resume the hearing.
Morris -v-Beardmore
[1982] All E.R. 753 considered.
The Director of Public Prosecutions
-v-
Martin Closkey - High Court (per
O'Hanlon J.). 6 February, 1984.
Eugene O'Sullivan
CONSUMER INFORMATION ACT
Functions of Director of Consumer
Affairs — Authority of authorised official.
Following a complaint made to the
Director of Consumer Affairs by two
customers of the first-named Defendant
relating to the provision of a holiday
apartment, the Director assigned one of
his staff, Robert McClean, to investigate
the complaint. The Defendants furnished
Mr. McClean with all the information he
required save information in respect of
the payment by the first-named
Defendant for the apartment in question.
Mr. McLean was a "whole time officer
of the Minister" and therefore a person
entitled to be an authorised officer within
the meaning of Section 16 of the
Consumer Information Act sub-sections
2 and 3 of which read:—
"(2) The Authorisation of an authorised
officer shall indicate the matters in
respect of which he may act under
this Section.
(3) An authorised officer may, for the
purpose of obtaining any informa-
tion which may be required in order
to enable the Minister or the
Director of the council of a county
or the corporation of a county or
other borough, as the case may be, to
exercise his or its functions under the
Acts or this Act, on production of
the officer's authorisation, if so
required —
(a) at all reasonable times enter
premises at which any trade or
business or any activity in
connection with a trade or
business is carried on and
inspect the premises and any
goods on the premises and, on
paying or making tender of
payment therefor, take any of
the goods,
(b) require any person who carries
on such trade, business or
a c t i v i ty and any person
e m p l o y e d in c o n n e c t i on
therewith to produce to the
officer any books, documents
or records relating to such
trade, business or activity which
are in that person's power or
control and to give him such
i n f o r m a t i on as he may
reasonably require in regard to
any entries in such books,
documents and records,
(c) inspect and copy or take
extracts from such books,
documents and records,
(d) require any such person to give
to the officer any information
the officer may require in
regard to the persons carrying
on such trade, business or
activity (including, in parti-
cular, in the case of an
u n i n c o r p o r a t ed b o dy of
persons, information in regard
to the membership thereof and
of its committee of manage-
ment or other controlling
authority) or employed in
connection therewith,
(e) require any such person to give
to the officer any other
information which the officer
may reasonably require in
regard to such activity."
The authorisation which was given to
Mr. McClean was as follows:—
"The Minister for Trade, Commerce
& Tourism HEREBY AUTHORISES
Robert P. McClean being a whole time
Officer of the Minister to exercise the
powers conferred by s.16 of the
Consumer Information Act 1978, that
is to say, the said authorised officer
may for the purpose of obtaining any
information which may be required in
order to enable the Minister or the
Director to exercise his function under
the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 to
1978 or the Consumer Information
Act, 1978, on production of the
Of f i c e r 's a u t h o r i s a t i o n, if so
required"
xviii