The Gazette 1967/71

had made a mistaken assessment; it was in any event open to the council to re-admit the appel lant. Decision of the disciplinary committee affirmed. (Lawther Royal College of Veterinary Sur

elude the Finance Act, 1967, to be available to the public in a fortnight. A further supplement to the stamp duty volume which will have regard to the stamp duty provisions of the Finance (Miscellaneous Pro visions) Act, 1968, is in the course of preparation and will shortly be sent for printing. Steps will be taken to ensure that printing is carried out promptly. I agree that it is desirable that the supplements should be published as soon as possible after the passage of the relevant legislation and the Revenue Commissioners will make every endeavour to en sure that this is done. Yours sincerely, Charles J. Haughey Gerard Sweetman, Esq., T.D., 30 Lower Baggot St., DUBLIN 2. the changes made by The appellant was a veterinary surgeon of good character who had been in pracitce for 16 years. In the course of treating a dog for a rubber ball lodged in the gullet, the appellant misled the owner, who showed some emotional upset at the fact that any incision in the throat had been made at all, into the erroneous belief that a deep and serious operation had been carried out by cutting right into the passage of the oesophagus, when in fact there had merely been an incision into the skin. The disciplinary committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons found the appel lant guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and removed his name from the register. On appeal :— Held, that the appeal under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1966, was by way of rehearing in the same sense as an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the judge alone and a decision on fact by the disciplinary committee could be re versed only where it appeared from the transcript of evidence or other admissible matter that the committee had made a mistaken assessment in arriving at their decision on fact; and that al though their Lordships felt some concern as to whether removal from the register might not in the circumstances be too severe a penalty, pro fessional misconduct was a matter for the dis ciplinary committee and the appellate court should not intervene unless satisfied that the committee CASES OF THE MONTH Appeal from disciplinary committee

geons [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1441). Solicitors' Inexcusable Delay

By writ dated 21st January, 1965 the first plain tiff who was then an infant and his father claimed damages for personal injuries sustained by the in fant on 22nd January, 1962 when a car driven by the defendant collided with the infant plain tiff on his motor cycle. On 22nd May, 1962 the defendant was found guilty of driving her car without clue care and attention. The plaintiffs had originally instructed country solicitors. There were negotiations and offers were made, but there was no settlement. In 1965 the defendants wanted a further medical examination. In June 1965 the plaintiffs changed their solicitors. No notice of change of solicitors was given until December, 1967; and there was over 2 years delay in notifying the defendant of the plaintic's wish to proceed with the action. On 9th May, 1968 Fisher J. dismissed the defendant's appli cation on appeal from Master Lawrence to strike out the plaintiff's claim due to prolonged and in excusable delay in prosecuting the action. The defendant appealed. In the Court of Appeal Lord Denning MR said that the plaintiffs' solicitors' delay after change of solicitors had been prolonged and in excusable. No notice of change of solicitors or of grant of a legal aid certificate had been given for a considerable time. Liability in the case was not in substance in dispute. The court would rarely dismiss an action for want of prosecution if liability was not in dispute : Gloria v. Sokologg and Others (1968) 112 S.J. 422. Fisher J. had felt that there was no serious prejudice and there was no sufficient ground for interfering with his decision. In substance the case could be fairly tried and dealt with. The appeal should be dis missed. (Kruschandl (late an infant) and another v. Bulkeley 112 S.J. p. 763). Striking out of action because of inordinate delay The plaintiff was injured on 23rd November, 1962 when in the course of his employment by the defendant as a builder's mason he fell from the roof where he was working. Six months after the accident, the plaintiff reported it to his trade 54