The Gazette 1975

in England was fully considered by McCardie J. i' Buttcrworth v. Butlcrworth —L.R. (1920) Pfobate 126 The following principles, laid down in that judgment apply to Ireland. (1) Sincc the action was not historically one for trespass, b u t ' a n action on the case, mere proof of adultery did not entitle the husband to damages — actual loss and injury had to be shown. (2) Punitive or exemplary damages could not be awarded, and damages were restricted to what could be regarded as compensatory in respect of the loss and injury suffered. (3) In awarding compensatory damages, regard should be had to (a) the actual value of the wife to the husband, and (b) the proper compensation to the husband for the injury to his feelings, the blow to his marital honour and the hurt to his matrimonial and family life. (4) As to the value of the wife, this in turn can he considered on two aspects (a) the pecuniary aspect •n relation to which her fortune and her assistance in her h u s b a n ds business and such allied matters are relevant, and (b) the consortium aspect in re ion to which the wife's general qualities as a wife and mother and her conduct and general character are relevant. (5) With respect to damages for the injured feeling °f the husband, moderation, rather than undue severity, should be the principle. The conduct of the defendant can be of "the greatest importance. Any feature of treachery, any grossncss of betrayal, any wantonness of insult, may deeply add to the husband's sense of injury and wrong, and therefore call for a larger award, not as exemplary damages, but as appropriate compensation. (6) The character and conduct of the husband is as fully in issue as the character and conduct of the wife. If punitive damages are ruled out. in what manner should the Court consider the award of £15,000 in this case? There was no pecuniary loss, nor was there loss of consortium, since, at the time of the adultery, the plaintiff and his wife were living apart. From the evidence the husband accepted news of his wife's Infidelity rather philosophically. Since September, 1972, l he husband returned to Ireland to live with his wife, and has lived with her ever since. The award of LI 5,000 is consequently grossly punitive and excessive. With regard to the Judge's charge, the defence of condonation was never opened to the jury, had been abandoned at the trial, and should not have been brought to the notice of the jury by the Judge. The Judge in his charge suggested that the wife could nave had intimate relations with two other men in the district. Without proof, this was quite inadmissible, as questions directed to a wife with a view to estab- lishing her misconduct are essentially matters in issue. For these and other minor reasons, the trial m u s t be set aside and a new trial ordered. (Maher v. Collins — Full Supreme Court per Q, Higgins C.J.—unreported—4 December, 1974.)

Correspondence

Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Dublin Castle, Dublin 2.

5 March, 1975.

James J„ Ivers, Esq., Director General.

Dear Sir, I am directed by the Revenue Commissioners to refer to your recent enquiry regarding the types of payments to be included in the recently designed Forms 8-2 (Solicitor) and to state that the payments to be included are payments such as those listed below:— (i) Interest or dividends on National Loans, Exchequer Bonds, National Savings Bonds, National Development Loan, and Exchequer Stock. Interest on Bank Accounts or Deposits. Interest from any Local Authority, where paid without deduction of tax; Interest from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Ltd., the Electricity Supply Board, Coras Iompair Eireann or Bord na Mona where paid without deduction of tax; Interest on dividends on British War Loans or other British and Northern Ireland Government Securities and Savings Certificates; Interest on shares or on deposits in Building Societies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Income from Securities, Stock, Shares, Rents or any other possessions outside the State; Discounts on Exchequer Bills or British Treasury Bills; Other Interest, Annuities, Annual Payments, etc., not subject to Irish Income Tax at source. (ii) Sums of which the Solicitor is in receipt, which are paid under his authority to bankers or other persons acting on his behalf, should, unless taxed by deduction to Irish Income Tax, be included in the Form 8-2 (Solicitor).

Yours faithfully,

G. McStravick.

45