63 / 264
GAZETTE
APRIL 1977
Communities presented to the Council a Preliminary
Community Programme for Consumer Information and
Protection (Section 74, 1939 final).
In the introduction to that paper Consumer Interests
were summarised by a statement of four basic rights:
(1) The right to protection, particularly of health,
safety and economic interests;
(2) The right of redress;
(3) The right of information and education; and
(4) The right of representation (the right to be
consulted, represented and to participate in
decisions of consumer concern).
It is recommended that protection in terms of health
and safety should mean action on the following principles:
(1) Goods and services provided for consumers should
be such that, when used in a normal and reasonable way,
they are not likely to be injurious to the health or safety of
consumers.
(2) When certain categories of goods and services are
primarily intended for particular categories of consumers
such as children, who are likely to use them in other than
a normal manner, such goods and services should be
provided in such a way that there is no risk to health and
safety, even when used abnormally.
(3) In general any risk of danger which might arise
from an unusual but rational use of a product should be
clearly indicated in an appropriate manner.
(4) The manufacture of goods and the providers of
services should be liable for injury caused by defective
products and services supplied by them.
(5) Appropriate Community Measures should be taken
to ensure the safety of goods and services. Special
measures may be necessary with regard to particular
products or services.
(6) Community Standards should be set and enforced
so as to eliminate or reduce, as far as possible, any
inherent risk of danger in the content of goods and the
containers thereof, their handling and use.
Valuation for compensation
is our business
Osborne King &Megran
Dublin 760251
Cork 21371
Galway 65261
(7) There should be quick and simple procedures for
withdrawal from the market of goods and services whose
use has been proved to constitute a danger to the health
and safety of consumers, or which may, when used in a
normal and reasonable way, constitute such a danger.
(8) Substances which may form part of or be added to
foodstuffs should be defined and their use regulated by
reference to clear and precise positive lists. Such lists
should be based on simple principles which do not inhibit
innovation.
(9) Prototypes of machines, apparatus and electrical
and electronic equipment which may constitute a safety
hazard, either in themselves or by their use, should be
checked by an appropriate public or non-public body
before being declared fit for use by the public.
(10) Foodstuffs should not be detrimentally affected by
packaging and other materials with which they come into
contact.
(11) Certain categories of new products which may
prejudicially affect the health or safety of consumers
should be submitted for prior authorisation according to
procedures agreed within the Community.
The paper proceeds to list a number of priorities in
regard to standardisation and harmonisation of measures
in the agricultural and industrial fields. Of primary
concern are foodstuffs; animal foods; fertilisers, pesticides
and insecticides; pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and
detergents; household utensils and applicances; textiles;
toys; cars and other consumer durables.
LANDLORD & TENANT:
Extension of Time for Service of Notice of
Intention to Claim Relief
In a recent decision (H. Wigoder & Co. Limited v.
Joseph Moran and Kayzer Leopold; judgment delivered
21st January 1977), where the principal reason for the
tenants' failure to serve a Notice of Intention to Claim
Relief within the period prescribed by Section 24 of the
1931 Act was the erroneous advice given by Counsel that
the tenant would not have to serve a notice until a
Notice to Quit determining his tenancy was served by a
Superior Landlord the Supreme Court held that the Judge
hearing the application should take into account all the
relevant factors surrounding the application, including in
particular whether the Landlord had taken any steps
consequent upon failure to serve the Notice, which would
result in prejudice to him if the time were extended. The
mere fact that the tenant would become entitled to a 21
year lease at a fixed rent under the provisions of the Act
would not in fact prejudice the Landlord. The Court
ought also to take into account any economic loss which
would be suffered by the Tenant having to vacate the
premises as a result of the failure to serve a Notice in
time. From this case, and the decision in a subsequent
case of
Thomas Nagle and Catherine Nagle
v.
Mamies
Limited,
heard on the 28th March, 1977, in the Supreme
Court, it is now clear that the Judges hearing applications
for extension of time for service of Notices of Intention to
Claim Relief can no longer feel themselves bound to
refuse an application if the reason for the failure arose out
of the negligence of the professional advisers, but must
take all relevant factors as laid down in the judgments of
the Supreme Court in
Wigoder
v.
Moran and Leopold
into account. It would seem that the recent cases must
give more hope to tenants (and their erring solicitors) that
time will in fact be extended.
54