The Gazette 1952-1955

7* The Rules o f the High Court and Supreme Court made on the 17th day o f November 1942 are hereby revoked. 8. These Rules may be cited as the High Court Rules (No. 2), 1953. DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL AND TRANSFERS UNDER SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS. A discussion recently took place between repres­ entatives o f the Dublin Solicitors’ Bar Association, and an officer o f the Dublin County Council In cases of transfers o f property upon which there is a Mortgage under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts which is not being paid off, it will facilitate the County Council if the first letter in the transaction applying for consent to the transfer is written by the transferor’s Solicitor giving full details relating to the transferee. I f this is done then all future correspondence will be sent direct to the solicitors acting for the parties. It is felt that the foregoing change in procedure will be o f considerable assistance to practitioners in the Dublin area. LAND REGISTRY APPOINTMENTS. T he following appointments have been made in the Land Registry, Department o f Justice, con­ sequent on the retirement o f Mr. Maurice J. L. MacGowan from the post o f Deputy Registrar and Chief Examiner o f Titles :— (1) Mr. Desmond McAllister, Solicitor, to be Duputy Registrar and Chief Examiner o f Titles. (2) Mr Bernard J. Clare, Solicitor, to be Examiner o f Titles and (3) Mr. Patrick J. Smyth, Solicitor, to be Senior Legal Assistant. Mr. Maurice J. Lysaght MacGowan, Barrister-at- law, Deputy Registrar and Chief Examiner o f Titles in the Central Office o f the Land Registry has retired from that post after having completed 40 years service in the Land Registry. On the occasion o f his retirement the Registrar and members o f the staff in making a suitable presentation to him testified to that unfailing courtesy with which Mr. MacGowan always placed his great knowledge and experience at the disposal not only o f the staff o f the Registry but o f Legal Practitioners who had occasion to consult him. DUBLIN SOLICITORS’ BAR ASSOCIATION. T he Annual Meeting o f the Association will be

held at the Solicitors’ Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin, on Friday 9th October 1953 at 8 p.m., and not on Friday 8th October as incorrectly stated in

the Ju ly issue. DECISION

OF

PROFESSIONAL

INTEREST. Time Limited for Renewal o f W rit can be extended. Is a writ o f summons, which by the terms o f Order 8, Rule 1, o f the Rules o f the Supreme Court, does not remain in force fo r more than twelve months from the date o f issue , valid, where a Defendant enters a unconditional appearance to a writ which has been served on him out o f time, and subsequently issues a summons to set aside the service o f the writ ? Yes, said the Court o f Appeal (Singleton and Denning L .J.) reversing the Master and Barry J., because the appearance to such a writ is a step in the action and amounts to a waiver by the Defendant o f the irregularity in the service of the writ, which prevents him from setting up the defence that such service was bad in law. (In this case, a widow, whose husband had been killed in an accident in October 1950, commenced an action against the Defendants under the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 in October 1951 by a writ which was not served until more than twelve months after the date of issue, in October 1952. The first Defendants entered a conditional appear­ ance which was subsequently set aside. The second Defendants entered an unconditional appearance ; the present proceedings resulted from the motion to set such appearance aside). Per Singleton L .J :—“ It has been held over a long period o f years that Order 64, Rule 7, enables the Court to renew j writ even though application is not made until after the expiration of 12 months laid down under Order 8, Rule x. The position under Order 8, Rule 1 is that the writ is not in force for the purpose of service after the 12 months period has run ; it is still a writ. Per Denning L .J.—'“ In my opinion, the service of the writ after the 12 months was not a nullity, but an irregularity which was waived by the uncon­ ditional appearance.” (Sheldon v, Brown Bayley’s Steel Works Ltd. and Dawnays Ltd.—(1953) 3. W.L.R. 542.) Defendant’s Costs. — “Bullock” Order. Is a “ Bullock ” Order requiring a first defendant against whom judgment in an action has been obtained to pay the costs o f a second defendant (against whom the action has J*