313 / 338
the solicitor of the firm; copies of such order shall be
served on the Bank, and on the solicitor concerned;
the solicitor concerned may at any time apply to the
Court by motion on notice to the Society to discharge,
set aside or vary such order.
Copies of the High Court Rules 1961—S.I. No. 92
of 1961—may be obtained from the Government
Publications Sale Office, Henry Street Arcade
Dublin, for i/6d. each (or i/9d. including postage).
SUMMARIES OF CURRENT
LEGISLATION
The Council intend to publish for the use of
members summaries of current legislation.
It is
hoped that these publications which will be issued
with the GAZETTE but in detachable form for
retention will be of assistance in helping members to
keep abreast of changes in the law. A short guide to
the Rent Restrictions Act 1960 is enclosed with the
current issue of the GAZETTE and it is hoped to
publish further summaries from time to time.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
Termination of agreement—duty to take reasonable care of
hiredgoods, (Mayor's and City of London Court.} (Hire-
furchase Act,
1938.)
In
Acceptance Co. i>. Pike
(February 22, 1961) the
defendant terminated the agreement made with the
plaintiff
hire-purchase
company
after
having
considerable trouble with the hired car and having
incurred considerable expenditure in trying to make
it run satisfactorily. The car when returned was in a
very poor condition and
the plaintiffs claimed
damages for breach of the statutory duty to take
reasonable care of the goods or, alternatively, for
breach of the obligation imposed by the agreement
to return the goods in a state of good repair, working
order and condition. Judge Block held (i) that the
defendant had fully discharged the statutory duty
to take reasonable care of the car, and (2) that the
condition imposed by the contract was void under
5.5
(b)
of the Act of 1938 as it imposed a greater duty
on the defendant than that imposed by 5.4 (2) of the
Act.
Exemptionfrom tax—taxpayer resident in Eire.
The words "a person entitled under any enactment
or an exemption from income tax" in 5.4 (2) of the
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1955, include persons resident
in Eire entitled to exemption from income tax under
5.349 and Sched. 18 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.
Consequently such persons are not entitled
to
exemption from
tax on dividends from shares
acquired by them in dividend-stripping transactions
of the kind referred to in 5.4 (2) of the Act of 195 5,
even if this amounts to an infringement of the
relevant double taxation treaty with Ireland, as to
which
quaere.
The appellant company was incorporated and
resident in Eire. In 1957 it acquired the entire share
capital of two English companies, which subse
quently
declared
substantial
dividends
under
deduction of tax. The company claimed to be entitled
to recover the tax so deducted from the Revenue.
Held by the House of Lords affirming the Court of
Appeal that the tax could not be recovered;
Collco
Dealings v. I.R.C.
(1961) 2 W.L.R. 401;
(1961) i All E.R. 762. H.L.
Bank manager—advice as
to credit of non-customer.
(Ireland.}
In
Macken v. Munster and 'Leinster Bank and O'Grady
(1960) 95 I.L.T.R. 17, the plaintiff brought an action
against the bank and the second defendant, the bank
manager, claiming damages for breach of duty in
failing to exercise reasonable skill and care in
answering inquiries which he made of them. P., a
Dutch citizen resident in Ireland, approached the
Wexford Branch for a loan and showed the manager
a letter written in Dutch which, P. alleged, concerned
the transfer of money belonging to him from Holland
to Ireland. The manager did not have the letter
translated but, despite the fact that he believed P.
had the money in Holland, he refused to make the
loan.
Subsequently P. proposed that the plaintiff
would sign on his behalf and the bank manager
invited the plaintiff to call with him. In P's presence
the manager told the plaintiff that P. had money in
Holland and that there was no risk involved as he
had seen the documents. Acting on these assurances
the plaintiff, who had refused to make loans to P.
on previous occasions, signed a promissory note on
which P. defaulted.
The plaintiff also sued the
defendants for money which he had lent and the
value of goods which he later supplied to P.,
alleging that he did so on the strength of the
manager's representations that P. was creditworthy.
There were, however, other personal reasons why
the plaintiff lent this money and supplied these goods,
i.e. Defendant had been best man at P's marriage.
Judge Deale held that the bank manager failed to
take reasonable care when telling the plaintiff that
P. had money in Holland and was negligent in not
having the letter translated and accordingly he made
a declaration that the plaintiff would not be liable if
called upon to pay any sum on the promissory note.
He further held that as the plaintiff did not rely solely
on the manager's representations when subsequently
101