The Gazette 1958-61

the solicitor of the firm; copies of such order shall be served on the Bank, and on the solicitor concerned; the solicitor concerned may at any time apply to the Court by motion on notice to the Society to discharge, set aside or vary such order. Copies of the High Court Rules 1961—S.I. No. 92 of 1961—may be obtained from the Government Publications Sale Office, Henry Street Arcade Dublin, for i/6d. each (or i/9d. including postage). SUMMARIES OF CURRENT LEGISLATION The Council intend to publish for the use of members summaries of current legislation. It is hoped that these publications which will be issued with the GAZETTE but in detachable form for retention will be of assistance in helping members to keep abreast of changes in the law. A short guide to the Rent Restrictions Act 1960 is enclosed with the current issue of the GAZETTE and it is hoped to publish further summaries from time to time. Termination of agreement—duty to take reasonable care of hiredgoods, (Mayor's and City of London Court.} (Hire- furchase Act, 1938.) In Acceptance Co. i>. Pike (February 22, 1961) the defendant terminated the agreement made with the plaintiff hire-purchase company after having considerable trouble with the hired car and having incurred considerable expenditure in trying to make it run satisfactorily. The car when returned was in a very poor condition and the plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of the statutory duty to take reasonable care of the goods or, alternatively, for breach of the obligation imposed by the agreement to return the goods in a state of good repair, working order and condition. Judge Block held (i) that the defendant had fully discharged the statutory duty to take reasonable care of the car, and (2) that the condition imposed by the contract was void under 5.5 (b) of the Act of 1938 as it imposed a greater duty on the defendant than that imposed by 5.4 (2) of the Act. Exemptionfrom tax—taxpayer resident in Eire. The words "a person entitled under any enactment or an exemption from income tax" in 5.4 (2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1955, include persons resident in Eire entitled to exemption from income tax under 5.349 and Sched. 18 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. Consequently such persons are not entitled to exemption from tax on dividends from shares DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST

acquired by them in dividend-stripping transactions of the kind referred to in 5.4 (2) of the Act of 195 5, even if this amounts to an infringement of the relevant double taxation treaty with Ireland, as to which quaere. The appellant company was incorporated and resident in Eire. In 1957 it acquired the entire share capital of two English companies, which subse quently declared substantial dividends under deduction of tax. The company claimed to be entitled to recover the tax so deducted from the Revenue. Held by the House of Lords affirming the Court of Appeal that the tax could not be recovered; Collco Dealings v. I.R.C. (1961) 2 W.L.R. 401; (1961) i All E.R. 762. H.L. (Ireland.} In Macken v. Munster and 'Leinster Bank and O'Grady (1960) 95 I.L.T.R. 17, the plaintiff brought an action against the bank and the second defendant, the bank manager, claiming damages for breach of duty in failing to exercise reasonable skill and care in answering inquiries which he made of them. P., a Dutch citizen resident in Ireland, approached the Wexford Branch for a loan and showed the manager a letter written in Dutch which, P. alleged, concerned the transfer of money belonging to him from Holland to Ireland. The manager did not have the letter translated but, despite the fact that he believed P. had the money in Holland, he refused to make the loan. Subsequently P. proposed that the plaintiff would sign on his behalf and the bank manager invited the plaintiff to call with him. In P's presence the manager told the plaintiff that P. had money in Holland and that there was no risk involved as he had seen the documents. Acting on these assurances the plaintiff, who had refused to make loans to P. on previous occasions, signed a promissory note on which P. defaulted. The plaintiff also sued the defendants for money which he had lent and the value of goods which he later supplied to P., alleging that he did so on the strength of the manager's representations that P. was creditworthy. There were, however, other personal reasons why the plaintiff lent this money and supplied these goods, i.e. Defendant had been best man at P's marriage. Judge Deale held that the bank manager failed to take reasonable care when telling the plaintiff that P. had money in Holland and was negligent in not having the letter translated and accordingly he made a declaration that the plaintiff would not be liable if called upon to pay any sum on the promissory note. He further held that as the plaintiff did not rely solely on the manager's representations when subsequently 101 Bank manager—advice as to credit of non-customer.