The Gazette 1977

GAZETTE

JULY

child's grandmother would give him a good example. In considering the case of EX. v. MX., (1974) Fitzgerald C.J. said that the wife's conduct had the effect of breaking up the marriage, and of ruining her own life and that of her husband. If she persisted in that conduct, it would inevitably result in ruining the lives of the two children. Walsh J. stated that on the facts, the wife had a permanent adulterous relationship with Mr. M. She had a separate establishment from the husband. The husband and wife were both wealthy, but the wife's efforts to obtain an annulment before die Ecclesiastical Courts had failed. The wife had quite openly and intentionally broken the matrimonial bond. In so far as the question of the social, moral and religious aspects of the children's welfare are concerned, there is a very marked difference between the husband and the wife; the way of life chosen by the wife is the more likely to be harmful to the children's welfare. Budd J. stated that the husband was in a position to provide a suitable home and suitable care and attention for the children. It was unlikely that the knowledge of the wife's liaison could be kept from the children for long; she was thus unable to give a good example. Henchy J. stated that the wife had acted capriciously and irresponsibly on occasions, and this led to final separation in 1973. In his view, there was insufficient evidence at the hearing before Kenny J. to establish the alleged permanent adulterous relationship with Mr. M. He also thought that the medical evidence, which stated that the daughter's health would be impaired if she did not stay with her mother, should not have been excluded. The wife had given an undertaking that Mr. M. would have no contact with the children, and the children appeared to be happy with their mother. A change would entail an exchange of the known for the unknown. In view of the importance of the children's welfare, it was essential that the full evidence should be heard. Griffin J. concurred.

CORRESPONDENCE

The Cons t ruc t i on Industry Federation, 9, Leeson Park, Dublin 6. 16th August, 1977.

The Editor, Incorporated Law Society Gazette. Dear Sir,

I refer to the article in your January-February issue entitled "Purchasers at Risk on Deposits". You refer to representations made to the Construction Industry Federation and state that "but while they have been contemplating some sort of a guarantee system, none is likely to be produced in the immediate future". There may be a misunderstanding here. We propose to introduce, with effect from the 1st January 1978, a Structural Guarantee Scheme for privately owned houses built by member firms. With regard to a guarantee scheme for purchasers who pay a deposit and then find that the builder becomes insolvent, there are, particularly at the present time, difficulties in this regard and there is also an alternative and more satisfactory solution. Firstly, as we will shortly introduce the above mentioned scheme for structural defects, it would be most unlikely that we could introduce another scheme in or around the same time. The Structural Defects Scheme will be financed by our members and it will take some time before we can see what the ratio of claims is. Secondly, funding a scheme to protect deposits would be extremely difficult as the experience in this regard would not be sufficient to provide data from which a properly structured scheme could be based; also, of course, it would ultimately add to the cost of housing as it would have to be financed. The incidence of builders accepting deposits and then becoming insolvent is rare but I appreciate fully that it causes extreme hardship to the house purchaser. A far better way of dealing with the matter, which would avoid the expense of setting up a deposit guarantee scheme and at the same time deal with the problem, would be to amend the legislation relating to insolvency, to specify that persons who place deposits should be regarded as preferential creditors given the same rights over mortgage or debenture holders as workmen are for the purpose of wages and the Government for the purpose of taxes. This would effectively protect the house purchasers without having to set up an elaborate and possibly costly scheme. Yours faithfully, THOMAS REYNOLDS, Managing Director. Council of Europe —Study visits Abroad The Council of Europe has drawn up a scheme to promote study visits abro oH by lawyers from member States of the Council. Full particulars and application forms for assistance towards organising or financing study visits in accordance with the scheme are available on request from the Secretariat of the Department of Justice, 72/76 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2. Completed forms should reach the Department not later than 30 September, 1977. 109

APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Declan Costello, Attorney-General, has been appointed a Judge of the High Court. Circuit Judge James D'Arcy has been appointed a Judge of the High Court. Mr. Timothy Desmond has been appointed a Judge of the Circuit Court. Mr. John Grattan Esmonde has been appointed a Judge of the Circuit Court. Mr. Seamus Mahon, Solicitor, Tullamore, has been appointed a Justice of the District Court. Mr. Anthony Hederman, S.C., has been appointed Attorney-General. Mr. John Fitzpatrick, Solicitor, 67 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2, has been appointed Solicitor to the Attorney- General. Mr. Brendan Toal, Barrister-at-Law, has been appointed a Commissioner of the Land Commission.