126 / 264
GAZETTE
JULY-AUGUST 1978
Correspondence
6 Farnham Street,
Cavan
16th June 1978
Re: Decisions of Interest; Extending time for late
Notice of Appeal from District Court Decision
Dear Sir,
Cavan County Council made a loan to the Defendant
under Section 39 of the Housing Act 1966 secured by
way of Deed of Charge which included covenants for
repayment by regular quarterly instalments. In
consequence of alleged non-payment of the instalments,
the Council brought a summons under the Housing Act
1966 for possession. On the 9th March 1978, the District
Justice, at Cavan District Court, granted to the Council a
warrant for possession. Time for appeal expired on 23rd
March 1978. On the 21st April 1978, the Defendant's
Solicitors served Notice of Application to the District
Court to extend time for the late filing of an appeal. This
came before the District Justice on the 27th April 1978.
The District Justice expressed the view that on the
making of his Order in the District Court his jurisdiction
in the matter was spent and he did not consider that Rule
13 of the District Court Rules 1948 (as substituted by
Rule Number 5 of the District Court Rules 1955) gave
him jurisdiction to extend time for late filing of appeal. In
concluding that he had no jurisdiction to extend time for
appeal, he also took into consideration the decision in the
State (O'Sullivan v District Justice Buckley & Another)
S.C. 101 I.L.T.R. Page 152 and the Obiter of Judge
Lavery therein; "In condisering this appeal it has
occurred to me that it may be that an application to
extend time for appeal to the Circuit Court should be
made not in the District Court but to the Appellate
Tribunal — that is the Circuit Court".
The Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court against
the District Justice's Order dated 27th April 1978,
refusing to extend time for appeal. The matter came
before the Circuit Court Judge at Bailieborough County
Cavan on 16th inst.
He did not consider himself bound by the Obiter of the
Supreme Court decision above referred to and essentially
on the basis that the Circuit Court Rules did not provide
for an application in the Circuit Court to extend time for a
District Court appeal and on the basis that a Defendant
should have such a right of appeal he made a specific
finding that Rule 13 of the District Court Rules above
referred to does confer on the District Justice jurisdiction
to extend time for filing of late notice of appeal from a
District Court's decision. The question of whether in fact
he will extend time in the case in issue has been adjourned
for evidence on the merits.
Yours faithfully,
George V. Maloney
i!r
* 4
Portumna,
Co. Galway
3rd August, 1978
Re: Society's Summer Meeting, Killarney
Dear Sir,
In your report of the General Meeting of the Society held
at Killarney in the last issue of the Gazette I am quoted as
126
saying "the sum of one million pounds appears to include
sums representing overheads of the Society and suggested
that it should be replaced by a smaller fee". I made no
such statement. I referred to the accounts of the
Compensation fund and I pointed out that members
subscriptions to the Compensation fund amounted to
£50,000 but that a sum of £25,000 had been paid to the
Society's overheads and I expressed surprise at such a
sum being contributed from the Compensation fund to the
Society's overheads. I am quite satisfied with the
explanation given by the President when he explained that
£25,000 represented the'expense the Society incurred in
dealing with the compensation fund and helping to reduce
claims being made on same but I am still rather surprised
that this should come to a figure of almost £500 a week.
As the statement attributed to me in your report is
rather meaningless I would be glad if you would publish
this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Dominick H. Kearns
NAT I ONWI DE INVESTIGATIONS
(Laurence Beggs)
126 BROADFORD RISE
BALLINTEER
DUBLIN 16
Phone 989964
Valuation for compensation
is our business
Oi bo r a. King A fttogron)
Duolln 760251
Cork 21371
Galway 65261