The Gazette 1967/71

to issue to applicant detailed planning permission for erection of petrol station at Oxford Road, Ranelagh, Dublin. The applicant had first obtained outline plan ning permission from Department of Local Gov ernment and the Corporation had granted detailed planning permission on 18th July 1968,—on 19th August 1968, the Corporation passed a resolution which revoked both the outline permission and the detailed permission. An appeal was successfully brought against the decision of O'Keeffe P. The Supreme Court held that a Conditional Order of Mandamus should issue against Dublin Corporation on the grounds: (1) That a revocation cannot be effected until planning permission has been formally granted and issued (2) The power of revocation conferred by Section 30 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, is by Subsection (8) made a reserved function of the City Manager, and consequently the purported revocation by the Corporation was invalid. (State (Cogley) v Dublin Corporation and Macken—Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh C. J., Haugh and Budd J. J.)—10th October 1968. BANKRUPTCY Rescission of Receiving Order The debtor was a former Solicitor who had been struck off the roll of Solicitors for misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society. His appeals against the striking off had been dis missed by the Divisional High Court, and by the Court of Appeal. Subsequently this debtor was awarded damages in an action in which some of the issues arising in the disciplinary action had been canvassed and as a result he applied for reinstatement in the solicitor's profession, but this application was dismissed. An appeal against that decision to the Master of the Rolls is pending. The debtor was now pursuing three actions in two of which negotiations for a settlement were pro ceeding. In June 1968 the the actions were stopped by the making of a Receiving Order on a Bank ruptcy Petition presented by the Law Society in respect of a debt of £2,559 being the costs incurred by it in the disciplinary and other proceedings. It was held that it was in the interest of the Creditors to allow the debtor a short time to pro ceed with his action to see if they would fructify in the receipt of monies. Accordingly the receiving order would be set aside, the official receiver would be appointed interim receiver, and the bankruptcy

proceedings would be adjourned for a few months. In Re Click—113 S.J. 172—Court of Appeal (Harman, Russell and Karminski L. J. J.). Sale of Land, Contract Conditional on Grant of Planning Permission The plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase land subject to the condition that the plaintiffs would receive permission from the planning authority to use the property as a transport depot, and to develope the property by erecting buildings and carrying out such works and using the prop erty in such manner as appropriate for a transport depot and the carrying on of the plaintiffs business of Road Haulage Contractors in the manner which was customery. On 5th April outline planning permission was granted for development of the site for use as a transport depot. On 7th June the local authority refused to approve the detailed plans. The plaintiff then gave notice to the defend ant that they were rescinding the contract and claimed the return of the deposit, and brought an action for a declaration, that they were entitled to the return of the deposit. On appeal Lord Denn ing held that on the true construction of the con tract the condition was not satisfied merely by the grant of outline planning permission but that approval in detail was also necessary. The plaintiffs had to take all reasonable steps to obtain approval in detail but in this case there was no obligation upon them to appeal to the Minister against the local authority's refusal. The condition in the contract had not been satisfied. The Plain tiffs were accordingly entitled to rescind the contract and recover the deposit. Hargreaves Transport Ltd. v Lynch—(1969) 1 All E.R. 455—Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Russell and Widgerry L. J.J.). LAND REGISTRY Extension of Compulsory Registration to Counties Carlow, Laois and Meath The following statement has been issued by the Government Information Bureau on behalf of the Minister for Justice: The Minister for Justice has made a'ri Order under section 24 of the Registration of Title Act, 1964 extending compulsory registration to the Counties of Carlow, Laoighis and Meath. These particular Counties have been selected by the Minister because they have recently been re-sur veyed by the Ordnance Survey Office. The Order is entitled the Compulsory Registration of Owner ship (Carlow, Laoighis and Meath) Order, 1969. 37