The Gazette 1974

ises. He saw that sign on f he following day. He believed that the sign was still publicly exposed to view. He said that the sign was injurious to the plaintiffs' business, and that the matter referred to in the sign was not connected with acts performed by the plaintiffs. Mr. O Brolchain said it was admitted that there had been delays from the society in furnishing the defen- dants with cheques to pay off their bridging loans. One of the difficulties was one in which there was some question about the title. He asked for an injunction restraining them from exposing to public view offensive or injurious signs. Mr. Ercus Stewart (for the defendants) presented an affidavit by Fergus Quinlan, who said that he was an architect and that he had bought the house in June 1972 for £6,995. He paid £500 deposit and obtained a bridging loan of £5,900 from the Bank of Ireland. He bought the house only on the understanding that he would be granted a loan by the society. The interest on the bridging loan was originally 12 per cent. This had been increased to 15£ per cent and the bank had indi- cated its intention to increase the rate to 17 per cent. Already he had paid about £825 interest and there was a further sum of £425 due, making in all the sum of £1,250 to date. Mr. Quinlan said that the notice he placed in his window read : "Loan arrangements by Claremont Homes Ltd.—No mortgage after 20 months". He had replaced this with a new notice which read : "No mort- gage after 20 months". He said that he never had any intention of injuring the plaintiffs, he merely wanted to bring this very worrying matter to their attention as nothing seemed to be happening and he was paying about £18 a week interest to the bank with a possibility of even further increases. Mr. Stewart said that the plaintiffs had not alleged that the words on the sign were untrue. It was Mr. Quinlan's window and he was entitled to put the sign in it. The President said he did not think this was a case for an interlocutory injunction. He awarded the costs of the application to Mr. and Mrs. Quinlan. [Claremont Homes Ltd. v. Quinlan; O'Keeffe P.; unreported; 11 March 1974.] Plaintiff awarded £500 damages for "scurrilous refer- ences". A Circuit Court Judge in Cork awarded a West Cork shopkeeper £500 for "scurrilous references which amounted to criminality and which could not be tolerated by any decent community" as a result of a libel action brought against Sunday Newspapers Ltd. of Botanic Road, Dublin, publishers of The Sunday World Plaintiff in the case was Liam O'Dwyer, of Ard- groom, Bantry, who sought £2,000 damages. The case arose after Mr. O'Dwyer, a newsagent and general merchant, wrote to the editor of The Sunday World saying it was a pity that the paper had unearthed "so much dirt in public affairs and now appeared with a setback in sales and popularity". Mr. O'Dwyer in the letter claimed that women had been seen slamming The Sunday World back on the counter after seeing a front page picture of Maeve Goldin showing "not alone her bathing nakedness but half of one of her nipples exposed and a side of the other". 100

l n a planning appeal is not a person deciding the case; does not appear to have the ordinary powers or •unctions of an assessor. The Minister is bound in the e *ercise of his powers under the Planning Acts to act w ithin the bounds of constitutional justice. It is quite reasonable that Section 82 (5) should be construed as Providing a right of inspection for any person holding ffie oral hearing so that he would be in a position fully a nd clearly to understand the evidence which was given before him, and appreciate the nature of the submis- sions being made, and thus faithfully and accurately report on both those matters to the Minister. If the defendant's contention were to be followed then the Minister, in considering the report of a visual inspec- tion, would be acting on what is in fact evidence not disclosed at the oral hearing which the other party had n ° opportunity to refute or challenge. In the particular c °ntext of what is not an unduly strongly worded r e port, where there was a direct clash of evidence e tween two of the witnesses called as to whether raw leverage was to be found or seen in the foreshore, a ac tual account by Mr. X of what he saw and did not se e is capable of influencing the Minister. It is clear that if, in a criminal or civil case, there has admitted evidence which an Appellate Court °lds to be inadmissible, and, if that evidence was Ca pable of being acted upon by the jury, the Court must " et a side the verdict of the jury. I see no reason why a .'tterent principle can apply to the review of the deci- Sl °n of the Minister carrying out a function of a judicial na ture in this case. Accordingly the inclusion of this a pcount by Mr. X in his report on the result of his Visual inspection of the area adjoining the land to be eveloped is fatal to the validity of the Minister's e cision. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to succeed this point, and the declaration sought to rescind the Minister's order will be granted. [Killiney and Ballybrack Development Association ^ ti. v. The Minister for Local Government and ernplefi nn Estates Ltd.; Finlay J.; unreported; March lo inter- c utory injunction brought by Claremont Homes Ltd. gainst Fergus Quinlan and Carmel Quinlan, of 17 M a r emo nt Court, Glasnevin, Dublin. ». An an affidavit read by Mr. Aengus O Brolchain, •am O'Donnell, sales manager for the plaintiffs at beir housing estate at Claremont Court, said that the e 'endants had purchased the house. Claremont Homes had an arrangement with the Provident Building "ciety whereby clients purchasing premises at Clare- " n t Court were referred to the society by the plain- '••s. He said that in or about September 1973 a sign ^as exposed in the front window of the defendants' Remises. He did not recollect the exact wording of the Sl f?n. The sign was removed by the defendants at his re quest. . On or about February 24 he was informed that a Sl gn bearing the words : "Loan arrangements by Clare- ti'ont Homes Ltd.—no cheque for 20 months", was e *posed in the front window of the defendants' prem- refused an application for an ° u rt injunction about sign in Glasnevin window fails. Owner's protest at mortgage delay. 0 ' ? e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e Court (Mr. Justice