The Gazette 1961 - 64

CUIRT BREITHIUNAIS CHUARDA (CIRCUIT COURT OF JUSTICE) Dublin Circuit County of the City of Dublin Pursuant to Order 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of the Circuit Court 1950 as amended by the Circuit Court Rules 1954, I, the Circuit Judge assigned to this Circuit, being satisfied that service (in accordance with Rule 4 of Order 10 of the said 1950 Rules) of Civil Bills and other Originating Documents of the Circuit Court by a duly appointed Summons Server is not practicable in the Summons Server's area of Balbriggan in this Circuit, do hereby direct that for the period of three months from this date, or until the post of Summons Server in that area has been filled, whichever event shall first happen, service of any such Civil Bills or other Originating Documents in said area may be effected by a duly appointed Summons Server to another area in said Circuit, by registered post. Dated this izth day of October, 1961. J. CONROY, Circuit Judge.

medical report that she suffered from suspected cancer. He did not disclose this information to her, although it would have a material effect on the value to be obtained from the purchaser of an annuity owing to the shortening of expectation of life. His reason was that the client might suffer severe mental anguish if the medical information were disclosed by him. The annuity was purchased and the client died shortly afterwards. The personal representative sued the firm of solicitors on behalf of the estate for alleged negligence in allowing the client to purchase the annuity and thereby deprive the estate of the money paid therefor. It was held by the High Court that the defendant firm owed no duty to the personal representative or the estate but solely under a duty towards the client. The solicitor had considered the situation having regard to all the circumstances including the mental shock to the client if informed that she was suffering from an incurable disease. He had come to a right decision which was made in good faith and was in no sense negligent or one involving a breach of duty. Judgement was given for the defendants. (Dunn v. Paris (Blissard, Barnes and Starve) 1961. 44 Sol.Jo.932). In Prior v. Rawe (1961) 178 E.G. 485, the plaintiff estate agent claimed commission on the sale of a house from the vendor who contended that the purchaser had contracted to buy at less than the asking price, and that the plaintiff had not been the effective cause of the introduction. The Court of Appeal held, allowing the appeal, that the estate agent was entitled to recover commission. In Re Gibbons, ex p. Walter (1960) Ir. Jur. Rep. 60, G. was adjudicated a bankrupt in England and the official receiver applied to the High Court of Justice (Bankruptcy) in Eire for an order in aid of the English High Court in respect of certain property in Eire belonging to the bankrupt. An oral order was made but before it was passed and perfected it became apparent that the bankruptcy matter had been initiated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in England. Walsh J. held that s. 71 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872, is enabling and discretionary but not mandatory, and that it was the policy of the courts in Eire not to permit jurisdiction to be invoked for the purpose of 48 Commission—purchaser unwilling to pay asking price —agent not effective cause of sale. Property in Ireland—order in aid—revenue debt. (Eire} (Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872 (35 e^ 36. Vtct.c. 58), s. 71).

IRISH DIGEST 1949-1958 To be published shortly, Price £700 net. also available IRISH DIGEST 1939 1948

£880 net.

or if ordered with the above IRISH DIGEST 1919-1928 IRISH DIGEST 1894-1918

£5

5

o net. o net. o net.

£i o £1 10

Cash with orders—cheques payable to: The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Ireland, Law Library, Four Courts, Dublin, 7. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST Actionforprofessional negligence. In Dunn v. Paris (Blissard, Barnes and Stowe) the plaintiff was the personal representative of a deceased client of the defendants a firm of solicitors. The client had consulted the defendants in 19 5 2 and again in 1956 about professional business. In 1957 she told a member of the firm that she wished to buy an annuity with the proceeds of the sale of a house. The solicitor told the client that if she purchased an annuity in a certain form she would deprive her relatives of the advantage of participating in her estate after her death. She repeated her instructions and the solicitor then went about obtaining quot ations. He subsequently realised as the result of a