The Gazette 1977

APRIL 1977

GAZETTE

Communities presented to the Council a Preliminary Community Programme for Consumer Information and Protection (Section 74, 1939 final). In the introduction to that paper Consumer Interests were summarised by a statement of four basic rights: (1) The right to protection, particularly of health, safety and economic interests; (2) The right of redress; (3) The right of information and education; and (4) The right of representation (the right to be consulted, represented and to participate in decisions of consumer concern). It is recommended that protection in terms of health and safety should mean action on the following principles: (1) Goods and services provided for consumers should be such that, when used in a normal and reasonable way, they are not likely to be injurious to the health or safety of consumers. (2) When certain categories of goods and services are primarily intended for particular categories of consumers such as children, who are likely to use them in other than a normal manner, such goods and services should be provided in such a way that there is no risk to health and safety, even when used abnormally. (3) In general any risk of danger which might arise from an unusual but rational use of a product should be clearly indicated in an appropriate manner. (4) The manufacture of goods and the providers of services should be liable for injury caused by defective products and services supplied by them. (5) Appropriate Community Measures should be taken to ensure the safety of goods and services. Special measures may be necessary with regard to particular products or services. (6) Community Standards should be set and enforced so as to eliminate or reduce, as far as possible, any inherent risk of danger in the content of goods and the containers thereof, their handling and use.

(7) There should be quick and simple procedures for withdrawal from the market of goods and services whose use has been proved to constitute a danger to the health and safety of consumers, or which may, when used in a normal and reasonable way, constitute such a danger. (8) Substances which may form part of or be added to foodstuffs should be defined and their use regulated by reference to clear and precise positive lists. Such lists should be based on simple principles which do not inhibit innovation. (9) Prototypes of machines, apparatus and electrical and electronic equipment which may constitute a safety hazard, either in themselves or by their use, should be checked by an appropriate public or non-public body before being declared fit for use by the public. (10) Foodstuffs should not be detrimentally affected by packaging and other materials with which they come into contact. (11) Certain categories of new products which may prejudicially affect the health or safety of consumers should be submitted for prior authorisation according to procedures agreed within the Community. The paper proceeds to list a number of priorities in regard to standardisation and harmonisation of measures in the agricultural and industrial fields. Of primary concern are foodstuffs; animal foods; fertilisers, pesticides and insecticides; pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and detergents; household utensils and applicances; textiles; toys; cars and other consumer durables. LANDLORD & TENANT: Extension of Time for Service of Notice of Intention to Claim Relief In a recent decision (H. Wigoder & Co. Limited v. Joseph Moran and Kayzer Leopold; judgment delivered 21st January 1977), where the principal reason for the tenants' failure to serve a Notice of Intention to Claim Relief within the period prescribed by Section 24 of the 1931 Act was the erroneous advice given by Counsel that the tenant would not have to serve a notice until a Notice to Quit determining his tenancy was served by a Superior Landlord the Supreme Court held that the Judge hearing the application should take into account all the relevant factors surrounding the application, including in particular whether the Landlord had taken any steps consequent upon failure to serve the Notice, which would result in prejudice to him if the time were extended. The mere fact that the tenant would become entitled to a 21 year lease at a fixed rent under the provisions of the Act would not in fact prejudice the Landlord. The Court ought also to take into account any economic loss which would be suffered by the Tenant having to vacate the premises as a result of the failure to serve a Notice in time. From this case, and the decision in a subsequent case of Thomas Nagle and Catherine Nagle v. Mamies Limited, heard on the 28th March, 1977, in the Supreme Court, it is now clear that the Judges hearing applications for extension of time for service of Notices of Intention to Claim Relief can no longer feel themselves bound to refuse an application if the reason for the failure arose out of the negligence of the professional advisers, but must take all relevant factors as laid down in the judgments of the Supreme Court in Wigoder v. Moran and Leopold into account. It would seem that the recent cases must give more hope to tenants (and their erring solicitors) that time will in fact be extended.

Valuation for compensation is our business

Osborne King &Megran

Dublin 760251 Cork 21371 Galway 65261

54