The Gazette 1975

to purchase the shares of Mr. William Murphy, which would have been a criminal offence under the Act of 1959. In September, 1969, Mr. Patrick Murphy, by deed, assigned to the plaintiff Bank all the monies which were or would be payable to him in any capacity whatsoever. It was arranged that the receipt of the manager of the Cork office would be an adequate discharge. When the defendant was informed of this, he asked to be discharged from his office as liquidator, but no steps were taken. In May, 1970, the plaintiff Bank asked for a statement as to the liquidation, and then discovered that a loan of £100,000 had been made to Mr. Patrick Murphy. The assets of the company, including the loan, were estimated at £210,000, and the liabilities are about £70,000, leaving a surplus of about £140,000. The liquidator, by collecting the £100,000 improperly lent, could make a substantial interim distribution to the shareholders. In February, 1972, the Bank's solicitor pointed out that the Bank as assignees of Patrick Murphy's interest were entitled to the £100,000, and requested the defendant to demand immediate repayment of £100,000 from Mr. Patrick Murphy. The defendant replied six weeks later that it was for the Bank to take whatever steps they deemed necessary. The plaintiff Bank, being dissatisfied, issued a summons in June, 1973, by which they claimed a declaration that the defendant had acted in breach of duty in paying £100,000 to Mr. Patrick Murphy; they requested that this sum be paid back into the liquidation account, and that the defendant as liquidator pay all monies due by Mr. Patrick Murphy to the plaintiffs. The reason for not paying this sum would appear to be that in a liquidation, the sum payable to the Bank under the assignment would be substantially reduced. There is little doubt but that the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid all sums of money in the liquidation in respect of the shares owned by Mr. Patrick Murphy; accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to require the defendant to recover the loan of £100,000. Accordingly the order requiring the defendant to recall the loan of £100,000 will be made, which is to be paid into the liquidation account. [Provincial Bank of Ireland Ltd. v. O'Connor— Kenny J.—unreported—23rd July, 1974.] £49,580 damages awarded in Co. Cork hotel action In a reserved judgment delivered in the High Court, Dublin, Mr. Justice Hamilton awarded £49,590 damages and costs to John J. Lynch, of The Green, Midleton, Co. Cork, in his action arising out of the partial collapse of his hotel, ,the Tara Hotel, Midleton, 19 months after it had been opened. Mr. Lynch had brought his action claiming £150,000 damages, against the architect, the builders, and the firm which supplied the beams for the building. The defendants were: Charles Beale, an architect, of Cork; Patrick J. Murphy Ltd., building contractor, of Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork (a firm which has since gone into voluntary liquidation), and O'Reagan Precast Ltd., Cork. 18

Nullity decree granted on ground of duress

The wife sues for nullity of a marriage which took place in August, 1970. Both parties are Catholics, and there are no children. The ground of the petition is that the wife was put in such fear of the husband that she was compelled to marry him. In the first instance marriage is a solemn contract which is deemed to be valid. In this case the wife has already obtained a decree of nullity from the ecclesiastical authorities. When duress is pleaded, it must be a question of fact. The wife is 30 years old, and the husband, 37 years old; they first met nearly 8 years ago in November, 1965. They were both from Co. Clare, and they were both national school teachers working in Dundalk, but there appears to have been little affection between them. From 1965 until the marriage in 1970, the parties associated with each other. The husband, before the marriage, used the wife's car continuously, and borrowed more than £1,000 from her to pay his gambling debts; he also drank heavily. The judge is satisfied, despite his denial, that he does owe the wife £1,000. There is no doubt that the relationship lacked any real feelings of affection. - Two days before the marriage in 1970, the wife told her mother and sister that, although she did not wish to go through with the ceremony, the husband was forcing her to get married in Dublin. The following day, the husband and wife travelled together from Ennis to Dublin. The wedding was suddenly changed from 11.00 a.m. to 7.00 a.m. without notice to the wife, so that none of the wife's relatives could attend. From t he evidence it appears that he husband was arrogant and domineering, and that he cut the wife off from her friends; he is very forceful and disinclined to take "No" for an answer. This fact and the exercise of his influence largely contributed to the marriage taking place, and this amounted to duress. Any marital relations subsequent to the marriage also amounted to duress. A decree for nullity is accordingly granted. [B. v. D.—Murnaghan J.—unreported—20th June, 1973.] Murphy Bros. (Cork) Ltd. (hereinafter called "The Company") was incorporated in October, 1940. The issued share capital (15,000 shares of £1 each) was £15,000, of which Patrick Murphy owned 6,000 shares, William Murphy, 6,000 shares and Jeremiah Murphy, 3,000 shares. By special resolution of March, 1958, confirmed in April, 1958, it was resolved that the company be wound up voluntarily. As this resolution was passed before 1963, this liquidation is governed by the Companies Act, 1908. The defendant was appointed liquidator of the company. Between 1958 and 1966 the liquidator advanced sums totalling £100,000 at different times to Patrick Murphy. The powers of a liquidator are strictly defined in S. 151 of the 1908 Act, and do not include a power to make loans. Furthermore the sums were advanced in part Liquidator, who makes a loss unlawfully, must repay the sum into the Liquidation Account