The Gazette 1958-61

Kingsmill Moore J., in his judgment stated that he agreed that the determination of the Lay Com– missioners could not stand and that the appeal must be allowed. In his opinion, objections must be heard upon oral evidence given before the Com– missioners, or, in case leave were given to use an affidavit, with a right reserved to the objector to require the attendance for cross-examination of any person who had made an affidavit. It was not open to the Commissioners to determine any question raised in an objection on information contained in a report which was not disclosed to the objector and which he had no opportunity of refuting. Any matters which had or might have any bearing on the questions at issue or which might influence the decision of the Commissioners must be brought before them in open court so that the objector might know of them, might be able to test them on cross-examination, and might meet them, if he thought fit, by evidence given in support of his objection. (Re Roscrea Meat Products Ltd. 92 I.L.T.R. 100). Meaning of " without prejudice " in letter. On the night of 3151 December, 1954, and ist January, 1955, the plaintiff was injured whilst in the defendants' employment. She elected to sue the defendants in negligence in the High Court and the jury having disagreed was discharged without a verdict. The defendant company appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence to go to the jury and the jury should have been directed to find for the defendants at the close of the plaintiff's case. The appeal of the defendants was allowed with costs. The plaintiff thereupon asked the Supreme Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, section 60 to have compensation assessed under that Act by the Supreme Court under sub-section (3) or to have the question of assessment remitted to the Circuit Court under sub-section (4) thereof. The defendant company objected on the ground that the plaintiff's action for negligence had not been instituted until more than six months had elapsed from the date of the accident. It was held by the Supreme Court that the mere existence of two letters marked " without prejudice " passing some ten weeks before the termination of the six months period without any other evidence of negotiations for a settlement was not sufficient to raise the presumption that those letters were con– cerned with an attempt at settlement, and even if they were, it would not be proper to conclude that such attempts persisted to a date so near the expiration of the six months as to provide reasonable

Provision is made in section 23 widening the power which a housing authority has to close any part of a house let for human habitation so as to bring within this power any part of a house used for human habitation, whether or not the occupation is a letting. The term " market value " as defined by section 32 (b) of the Housing Act 1950 is extended to mean that in the case of a house not occupied for the first time the amount, which, in the opinion of the local authority, the house if sold in the open market might reasonably be expected to realise, together with so much, if any, of the amount of the legal and other expenses incidental to the acquisition of the ownership of the house, as the local authority may consider proper (section 30). DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST Practice Note. Costs of Pleadings in High Court. In Gregory v. Minister for Finance, a High Court jury action heard in Hilary Term, 1958, the jury found for the plaintiff, but awarded only £350 damages, the injuries which the plaintiff had sus– tained having turned out to be considerably less serious than was expected when proceedings were instituted. The trial Judge (Murnaghan J.) did not grant a special certificate for costs under s. 12 (i) of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936. Counsel for the plaintiff applied ex parte to his Lordship for a special certificate for the costs of instructions for pleadings, and of the plenary summons, statement of claim and reply, such costs to be taxed on the Circuit Court scale. Murnaghan J., after observing that, without such a certificate, all the plaintiff's solicitor could recover were the costs of a Circuit Court Civil bill and of instructions therefor, granted the plaintiff the special certificate sought, limited to the plenary summons and the statement of claim and the costs of instructions therefor. (92 I.L.T. & S.J. 183.) Contents of 'Land Commission JLeport must be disclosed to the objector n>ho must be given an opportunity of refuting it. When hearing an objection to which s. 32, sub-s. 3 of the Land Act, 1933, applies it was held by the Supreme Court (Maguire C. J., Lavery, Kingsmill Moore, and O'Daly J. J.) that the Lay Commissioners may not determine any question raised in the objection on information contained in a report from an official of the Land Commission, when the contents of the report are not disclosed to the objector and when he has not had the opportunity of refuting the contents of the report.