The Gazette 1964/67

allowed costs on the scale appropriate to an award of .£10 and B appealed claiming costs on the scale appropriate to an award of £76 145. lod. The action was really brought to save B's no-claim bonus and the County Court Judge apparently took this matter into account. The Court of Appeal by a majority held that the arrangements between B and his insurers and the knock for knock agreement were irrelevant and that B was entitled to sue for the amount of the damage and to recover costs on the scale appropriate to the actual award. (Bourne and Anor. v. Stanbridge and Anor., 1965, i All. E.R. 241.) Onus ofproof in dangerous driving charge In an unreported case stated from a District Justice who had dismissed a summons for dangerous driving, Davitt P. on February ist, 1963, held that the onus of proof resting on the complainant Garda had been properly discharged and that the defendant, who had subsequently admitted the offence, should have been convicted. The evidence had been that on 2nd March, 1962, a car hit a stationary parked car, damaging it, and did not stop. Judge Deale's decision in Devane v. Murphy (1958), Ir. Jur. Repts. 73, dismissing a dangerous driving charge on the ground that the evidence in that case did not establish dangerous driving, but could have equally been the result of an effort on the part of the defend ant to avoid a sudden crisis, was not followed. Practice Note of the Queen's Bench Division (1962) i All. E.R. 448, followed.:— Per Lord Parker C.J. in Practice Note—A sub mission that there is no case to answer may properly be made and upheld— (a) when there has been no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged offence, (b) when the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable, that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it. Apart from these two situations, a tribunal should not in general be called on to reach a decision as to conviction or acquittal until the whole evidence which either side wishes to tender has been placed before it. If, however, a submission is made that there is no case to answer, if a reasonable tribunal is satisfied at that stage that it might convict on the evidence so far laid before it, there is a case to answer. (Griffin v. O'Reilly (unreported)—judgment of Davitt P., ist February, 1963.) Action for loss of services—" Stare Decisis" in Supreme Court A sergeant in the Irish Air Corps was seriously injured by a motor car driven by a servant of the 80

legislation to exempt beneficiaries of charities of this nature from the means test. I know they will continue to do this. This would particularly apply where the donees of our annuities have saved over the years and their moderate means might deprive them of getting a State pension if we stepped in to try and help them. This is a grave injustice and we should try to stop it. Any members who have any influence should try to assist the Association in this important matter. Gentlemen, may I wish the Association the success it so assuredly deserves in this and all its future years. SOLICITORS AND AUCTIONEERS The following item of interest appeared in Easiness and Finance (Vol. i, No. 18, January 22nd, 1965, p. 7) under the heading " Legislation coming to curb auctioneers " : " Among practices which members of the Auctioneers Association feel that the disciplinary council should take stronger action on is the growing practice that auctioneers are splitting commission with solicitors, particularly young solicitors who are struggling to become established. . . . There is contemplated legislation whereby money held for clients of auctioneers should be obligatorily lodged in a different account to that of the agency itself." UNESCO A vacancy exists for a legal office in the Office of the Director-General in the Bureau of Legal Affairs. Details of the duties and responsibilities, qualifica tions and experience required, and salary and allow ances can be obtained from the Bureau of Personnel, Unesco, Place de Fontenoy, Paris ye, France. Closing date for receipt of applications is iyth April, 1965. CASES OF THE MONTH Knock for knock agreement The first plaintiff B and his son brought an action in the County Court against the driver and owner of a car which had been in collision with B's car when driven by his son. The cost of making good the damage to B's car was £230 45. 6d. and this sum was claimed in the action. The driver of B's car was found to be two-thirds to blame so that B recovered only £76 145. lod. There was an excess of £10 on B's third party policy and there was a knock for knock agreement between B's insurers and the defendant's insurers. B had claimed and been paid by his insurers the sum of £230 45. 6d. less the £10 excess. The County Court Judge