![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0142.jpg)
GAZETTE
JULY
prosecution was brought in the name
of the investigating Garda, the
Garda, though performing what was
his duty, was in legal quality a
common informer. Mr. Justice
Griffin said that if, in transferring the
functions of the Attorney-General to
the DPP in criminal matters and in
substituting the DPP for the
Attorney-General in all statutes or
statutory instruments, the Legislature
intended that a change or reservation
would be made in respect of
prosecutions formerly taken in the
name of the Attorney-General, he
would have expected such a drastic
change to have been clearly and
expressly stated by the Legislature.
The authority purported to be
conferred by the letter of January
9th, 1975, was therefore in his view
unnecessary.
Statutory Power
If the practice of bringing
proceedings in the name of a Garda
was to be continued it would be far
more desirable that he should be
given a statutory power to do so
rather than having to prosecute as a
common informer. It would,
however, be more desirable still if all
prosecutions were brought in the
name of and prosecuted by the DPP,
if whatever administrative difficulties
which now existed could be
overcome.
Mr. Justice Parke said that he
would agree with the judgment of Mr.
Justice Griffin and would therefore
answer the District Justice's question
in the affirmative and allow the
appeal.
The People at the suit of the Director
of Public Prosecutions v. William
Roddy, John J. Duffy and Edmund
Ro d d y . — Supr eme Court
(O'Higgins, C.J., Griffin and Parke
J.J.) — unreported — 25 February,
1977.
PRACTICE
Plaintiff entitled to be paid in foreign
currency if judgment is given against
foreign defendant.
Application by plaintiff for judgment
in default of appearance to a
Summary Summons claiming 14,740
Dutch guilders being the amount due
for goods sold and delivered. The Cent-
ral Office ofthe High Court refused the
application on the ground that the
practice has always been to give
judgment in Irish currency only.
However there is no reported
decision of an Irish Court that a
judgment cannot be given in a foreign
14
currency. The question whether a
judgment can be given in foreign
currency has recently been
considered by the House of Lords in
Mileangos v. George Frank (Textiles)
Ltd.
- (1975) 3 A.E.R. 801 -
which laid down that judgments
founded on moneys due on foreign
currency could henceforth be paid in
that foreign currency. The requirements
of International Commerce are best met
by a rule which enables the Court to
give judgment in whatever currency
the plaintiff is entitled to under the
terms of the contract. In
Barclays
Bank Ltd.
v.
Levin Brothers Ltd.
(1976) 3 A.E.R. 900, Mocatta J.
held that to obtain judgment
expressed in a foreign currency, it is
not necessary to establish that the
proper law of the contract is a
Foreign Law.
Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled
to an order that the defendant does
pay to him the sum due in Dutch
guilders or the Irish currency
equivalent thereof at the date when
the judgment in default is entered in
the office.
Damen & Zonen v. O'Shea. —
McMahon J. — unreported — 25
May, 1977.
RIGHT TO LIGHT
Exjunction granted to plaintiff to
demolish defendant's extension, as it
obstructed the light of plaintifTs
diningroom.
Plaintiff is owner of premises in
Palmerston Gardens, Dublin, and
defendant is owner of adjoining
premises. These houses form part of
a row of two storey non-basement
houses with returns, built in pairs.
The return of plaintiff's house is on
north side, while that of the defendant
is on the south side.
The defendant built an extension
from the rere of his house to the
garden wall, which was 12 feet high
for a distance of 21 feet, and had a
flat roof. The plaintiff complains
that there has been an actionable
interference with his right to light to
the ground floor of his premises,
which he uses as a dining room. The
plaintiff contends that in any event
the dining room was not a well-lit
room, and that the erection of the
defendant's extension has caused a
further substantial diminution of light
in that room.
The plaintiff's wife was first
approached in April 1974 and asked
by the builder whether she had any
objection to the defendant building
the extension. The plaintiffs wife told
the builder that he would have to get
in touch with the plaintiff, who
emphasised that he would protect his
rights if the building was too high;
this was confirmed by a letter of 21
April 1974. The erection of the
extension commenced after 15 May
1974 to a height of 12 feet 10 inches.
The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the
defendant on 21 May 1974 to the
effect that, as a result of a search in
the Planning Department, they could
not discover any evidence of an
application for permission to erect
the extension. The solicitors for the
plaintiffs then stated that, if the work
continued, an application would be
made to the Court for an Injunction.
No notice was taken of this letter and
the extension was completed. The
various witnesses for the plaintiff now
proved that the diningroom was
much darker than formerly. There is
no doubt that the erection of the
defendant's extension has caused a
substantial deprivation of light to the
plaintiff's dining room. The plaintiff
is accordingly entitled to compel the
defendant to remove the extension
which he has built. This is all the
more the case, as the defendant
persisted in the building of the
extension with notice of the plaintiff's
objection, and that apparently the
extension was built without planning
permission.
Loughney v. Byrne — Murnaghan J.
— unreported — 7 October 1974.
CERTIORARI
Conditional Order of Certiorari
discharged as Tribunal had observed
rules of Natural Justice in deducting
Social Welfare benefits from
prosecutrix.
Conditional Order of Certiorari
granted to the prosecutrix, Monica
Hayes, on 2 March, 1977, to quash
the award made by the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Tribunal in
respect of the death of John Hayes,
on the following grounds:—
(1) The Tribunal did not have
jurisdiction to reduce the gross
value of the loss suffered by the
dependants of John Hayes by a
sum which was the value of the