The Gazette 1967/71

adjudged a bankrupt on 26th March 1968. In his statement of affairs, the bankrupt disclosed a deficiency of £286,535. On 26th February 1969 Plaintiff obtained judgement in Irish High Court against defendant for £45,595 and costs. An appeal was lodged by Defendant on 21st March 1968, on the alleged ground that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Substituted ser vice on behalf of Defendant was effected on David Blandford as a result of an order of Butler J. dated 6th September 1967; an appearance was entered by a Dublin solicitor for Defendant on llth October. In his affidavit, the Defendant stated: (1) That he had never been a citizen of Ireland (2) That he was not domiciled in Ireland (3) That he had never had any transaction with the Plaintiff in Ireland, and that the sum due was on foot of an overdraft in England. It was held in the High Court that, by entering an appearance, the Defendant had accepted the Irish jurisdiction and could not raise this question. The Plaintiff then brought a notice of motion to the Supreme Court to order Defendant to provide security for costs before proceeding with the appearance. Under Order 58, Rule 18, security for costs for an appearance shall be given as directed by special circumstances by the Supreme Court, Walsh J. reviewed the previous cases, and listed the following principles arising from them: — (1) The Supreme Court is free to order security in any type of case (2) Poverty alone is not sufficient to warrant the making of an order for security (3) However poverty or unsufficiency of assets on the part of the applicant was an essential requisite for the making of such order (4) If a point of law of public importance had to be decided by the Supreme Court, the Court could refuse to order security, if the effect of such an order was to prevent the important point of law from being heard. In this case, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an order for security for costs, particularly as the Defendant has no assets, and was resident outside the jurisdiction. (Midland Bank Ltd. v David Crossly—Cooke— Supreme Court. (Walsh, Budd and Fitzgerald J. J.) —22nd May 1969) Preliminary Refusal to Issue Detailed Planning Permission for Erection of Petrol Station Unreasonable O'Keeffe P. refuses application for conditional order of Mandamus against Dublin Corporation 36

1969/70 at the Annual General Meeting of the Medico-Legal Society of Ireland held recently. Patron: The Chief Justice, the Hon. Cearbhall O Dalaigh. President: Dr. Patrick Bofin. Immediate Past President: Niall McCarthy Esq. S.C. Vice Presidents: The Hon. Mr. Justice Kenny, Mr. Edward Fahy, B.L., Dr. F. McLaughlin, Dr. H. Jocelyn Eustace, Mr. Donough O'Donovan. Hon. Secretary: Miss Thelma King. Hon. Treasurer: Mr. Raymond Downey. Council: Miss A. B. Cassidy B.L., Professor Maurice Hickey, Professor P. D. Holland, Captain James A. Kelly, Miss Carmel Killeen, Professor Patrick Meenan, Dr. Desmond McGrath, Mr. Brendan McGrath, Mr. Matthew Russell B.L., Dr. Brian Woods. Plaintiffs, 3 co-operative societies and 4 farmers, seek declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of Livestock Marts Act 1967 are unconstitutional. Section 3 inter alia states that the Minister may attach to the license such conditions as he shall think proper, and that the Minister may at his sole discretion amend or revoke a condition attached to the license. By Section 4, the Minister may grant or withdraw an exemption to take out a licence under the Act at any time. The President, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe, granting the declaration, held that sections 3 and 4 of the Act, by conferring an unfettered discretion upon the Minister, infringed Article 40, Section 1, of the Constitution, which states that "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law", as such discretion gives a wide scope for differ- entation between individual citizens. (East Donegal Co-operative Livestock Mart and Others v the Attorney-General,—O'Keelfe P.— 22nd May 1969—unreported). SECURITY FOR COSTS PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE In November 1967, Plaintiff obtained Judgment against Defendant in the English High Court for £45,595. The judgment remained unsatisfied, and consequently the Plaintiff instituted bankruptcy proceedings in England, and the Defendant was RECENT DECISIONS LIVESTOCK MARTS ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL