The Gazette 1986

GAZETTE

sep

BER 1986

spouses have the same domicile, the abolition of the

latter rule makes it necessary to replace the rule as to

recognition. Sub-Section 1 replaces the rule that a

divorce was recognised in the State if it is granted in the

country where the spouses are domiciled with a new rule

to the effect that the divorce shall be recognised if it is

granted in the country where

either

spouse is domiciled.

Sub-section 6 provides that section 5 shall not affect

any ground on which the Irish Courts may refuse to

recognise a foreign divorce apart from the ground that

the requirements as to the domicile of a party are not

satisfied. In particular, the sub-section will enable

Courts to continue to withhold recognition if a spouse

has not been given adequate notice of the divorce

proceedings.

•

Courts No. 2 Act, 1986

The attention of members is drawn to the fact that the

Courts Bill of 1984 was passed by both Houses of the

Oireachtas, under the above title, on 2 July, 1986.

Sections 2, 3(1), 3(3) to 3(5) and sections 5 to 8 became

law on 12 July, 1986, but the other provisions shall

come into operation on such dates as may be fixed by

the Minister for Justice. Such a date has not yet been

fixed. The Act makes certain changes in relation to the

enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926 and 1940, and

has some important changes in relation to the Intoxica-

ting Liquor Acts. The principal changes are as follows:

Section 1. This section, which has not yet been

brought into force, repeals section 15 of the Enforce-

ment of Court Orders Act, 1926, and replaces it with a

new section which gives the Creditor power to apply to

the District Court Clerk for an Examination Order, as

opposed to the present system of applying to the Court

itself. The District Court Clerk can then give a return

date for the summons where the Debtor would be

examined on his means. However, prior to the Debtor

being examined in Court as to his means he must supply

the Creditor with a full copy of the Statement which he

intends to rely upon at the Court Hearings so that the

Creditor has an opportunity of examining the veracity

of the Statements made.

Section 4, which has not yet been brought into force,

provides that intoxicating liquor licences may, save in

certain exceptional cases, be renewed annually by the

Revenue Commissioners without the production of a

Certificate of the District Court (Sub-section 2).

Heretofore a Certificate had to be obtained at the

annual licensing District Court as a prerequisite to the

renewal of a licence by the Commissioners. A Court

Certificate will still be required where objection to the

renewal has been lodged with the Court and in other

specified circumstances. These other circumstances are

(a) where there has been structural alteration, (b) where

the licence has expired and the application for renewal is

made by a person other than the holder of the licence

within one year after such expiry and (c) where any

change is proposed in the nature of the licence or in the

conditions attaching to it.

Section 6. This section, which is now in force, amends

section 25 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, by the

insertion after sub-section (1) of that section of the

following sub-section:

"1(a). In the case of a conviction for any offence

relating to prohibited hours the provisions of sub-

section (1) of this section shall apply

only

if the

Court in its discretion so thinks proper."

So, for the first time, the Court has a discretion in

relation to endorsements for prohibited hours.

Section 7. This section, which is now in force, further

amends the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, by the

substitution of a new section 27. Whenever the holder of

any licence is convicted by the District Court of an

offence under Part III (endorsement of licences) and an

appeal lies to the Circuit Court, the Circuit Court Judge

has now a discretion as to whether or not any such

reaffirmation of a conviction should be endorsed on the

licence. Once again, an entirely new provision giving the

Court discretionary powers.

•

Health (Amendment) Act, 1986

The Health (Amendment) Act, 1986, seeks to restore

the position that was perceived to obtain immediately

prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in

Cooke

-v-

Walsh

and a synopsis of the main provisions is set out

below.

1. The main provisions of the Act concern personal

injuries caused by the negligent use of a mechani-

cally propelled vehicle in a public place, involving

in-patient services or out-patient services,

provided by a Health Board. Where the injured

person, his personal representative or dependant

has received or is entitled to receive damages or

compensation in respect of the injuries, or any

loss, damage or expense (or mental distress in the

case of a dependant) arising therefrom, the Health

Board shall, notwithstanding anything in the

Health Acts, 1947-1985, make a charge on the

person who received or is entitled to receive such

damages or compensation.

2. A Health Board may waive the whole or part of a

Charge for such services if it considers it proper to

do so, having had regard to the amount of

damages or compensation and interest (if any)

thereon received by the person liable to pay the

charge and having regard to any contributory

negligence.

3. In proceedings claiming damages in respect of

such injury, the provisions of the Act entitling the

Health Board to waive the whole or part of a

charge shall be disregarded.

235