The Gazette 1980

£5.000 issued by the second and fourth Defendants to September 1979. Fire damaged the premises in March 1979. On 27 July 1979 the two Plaintiffs, who were owners of the landlord's interest in the premises, obtained judgment against the First, Second and Fourth Defendants for £12.000 for repairing the premises, and £1.900 costs. The matter came before McWilliam J. by way of a Garnishee Order attaching the £5.000 payable to the Defendants by the Sun Alliance under the fire policy. The Bank, as equitable mortgagees, opposed this application of Plaintiffs, as it had an alleged interest in the premises. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank had not given any notice requiring the insurance money to be applied to the discharge of the mortgage debt, and that, in any event, the Plaintiffs had priority in their claim. McWMlam J. held: (1) That the Bank had a statutory right under S. 23 (4) of the Conveyancing Act 1881 to have the insurance money applied towards the discharge of the mortgage debt. (2) That S. 23 (4) applied to equitable charges by deposit of title deeds as well as to mortgages by deed. Judgment for PlaintifTs — OCTOBER. In Re Michael O'Connor deed. — Eileen O'Connor v. Maurice O'Connor and Margaret Vaughan — Construction of will. Held by D'Arcy J.:( DThaton 5 May 1975, the deceased was of sound mind and disposition. (2) That the Will of the deceased dated 5 May 1975 was duly executedin accordance with the Succession Act 1963. (3) Th at the deceased k new and approved of the content of thewilldated 5 May 1975. Accordingly Letters of Administration with the Will of the Deceased dated 5 May 1975 were ordered to issue to the Plaintiff — JUNE. OTiara v. Flint Troika Ltd. and Hamburg Investment Co. Lands in Crosshaven sold to first Defendant, subject to the right of the Vendor to reacquire part of the lands if it was necessary for planning purposes to demolish the building. The second and third Defendants began proceedings against Mr. Flint, the first Defendant, for specific performance to convey the lands which were settled by a Consent Order. The right to re acquire was upheld on a subsequent resale of land by Mr. Flint to Troika Ltd., the purchaser with prior notice of that right, even though that right had by then been previously assigned by the Vendor to Troika Ltd. McWilliam J. and the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Vendor's injunction proceedings which had been taken on the ground that Troika Ltd. intended demolishing buildings on the re- acquired lands — APRIL. Re Palgrave Murphy Ltd. and Companies Acts. Amount of £39.47 claimed by respective Ministers in respect of unpaid cheques in a liquidated company as preferential debts under S. 285 of Companies Act 1963. Held that the amount claimed was not due by the company under the Social Welfare Acts, but was money due for the purchase of insurance stamps. Accordingly, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was not entitled to priority, but only as an ordinary unsecured creditor — MAY. Pattison v. Institute of Industrial Research and Standards. Plaintiff was a technician employed by Defendants. In January 1970,

wayleave by the Vendor and he had no power to make such a grant. (3) That the Vendor and his Solicitor were in full possession of all relevant facts. A provision to grant the wayleave should have been in the contract, and was not implied. (4) That the Defendant Trustees were not entitled to compel the Purchaser to accept the reservations or to make the grant required. Minister for Agriculture v. Concannon - In answer to specific questions, Finlay P. held: (1) The evidence of a veterinary surgeon without further proof that he was such was prima facie evidence to establish that he was a veterinary surgeon. (2) The evidence of the veterinary surgeon in the case was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that he was lawfully qualified to practise veterinary surgery in the State — NOVEMBER. Minister for Agriculture v. Norgro Ltd. The Minister summoned Defendant for failing to display vegetables in conformity with a Community Directive on 30 October. In the District Court, it was contended by the Defendant that the Summons did not bear on its face the date of issue to show it had been issued within 6 months, in accordance with S. 10 of the Petty Sessions Act 1851. The Minister relied on the endorsement of service to prove that it had been served within 6 months. The District Justice held he had no jurisdiction. Upon a case having been stated to the High Court, Finlay P. held that: (1) The time limit arising under S. 10 was a matter of defence for the Defendant, and did not go to the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the summons. (2) Therefore the Minister should have been allowed to prove the issue of the Summons by referring the endorsement of the Summons. (3) The District Justice had full jurisdiction to hear the Summons — OCTOBER. Murphy and Garvey v. Eastern Health Board. Held by Costello J.: (1) That the rights of the two Plaintiffs, who were senior executive officers in the Eastern Health Board, and in particular the right to remuneration, were governed by statute, namely by S. 14 (4) of Health Act 1970. In making his determination, the Chief Executive Officer must act in accordance with the directions of the Minister who had absolute discretion. (2) The Plaintiffs were legally entitled to the additional remuneration they actually received from 3 March to 18 August 1972, but not after that date, because the Department of Health had refused to sanction it after that date — APRIL. Myler and Myler v. Mr. Pussys Nile Club Ltd., (2) Ledwlch, (3) Amsby, (4) Keogan and (5) Allied Irish Banks. Premises in Parnell Square, Dublin, held under Lease for 900 years, with no covenant for insurance. The first Defendant, by resolution of 30 September 1977, authorised the third Defendant to deposit the Title Deeds of the premises, with third Defendant's Bank, which was made the same day. The Bank notified the Sun Alliance Insurance Group of this deposit on 31 January 1979. There was a fire insurance with that Company for

Plaintiff claimed that the machine was still its property, and demanded its return or payment in full of the monies outstanding. McWilliam J. held that, as there was only one article sold, its resale was most unlikely to be contemplated by either party. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had retained the property in the refrigerating machine until payment in full was made — JULY/AUGUST. Harte v. Telecord Holdings Ltd. Plaintiffs appeal from decision of Redundancy Appeals Tribunal that the employment of the Plaintiff before August 1962 could not be regarded as continuous employment. Plaintiff claimed that she had worked continuously with Defendants from April 1945 to August 1977. As a result of her mother's death in February 1961, the Plaintiff became run down. Her doctor advised her to get away for a while. The doctor had issued a Certificate granting her one year's sick leave from August 1961 to August 1962. The Defendants alleged that they had not received it, but it was presented before the Tribunal. McWnUam J. held that it was clear that the cause of the interruption in Plaintiffs Employment was sickness, and that consequently Plaintiffs employment should have been regarded as continuous. Tribunal's decision reversed — MARCH. H.S. and S.G. v. Estates Management and Development Agency and Rosario Investments Ltd. By contract dated 15 February 1974, first Plaintiff agreed to sell to first Defendant in trust for second Defendant the premises 3 Dame Lane, Dublin, for £60,000. A deposit of £6,000 was paid. Completion was to take place on I March 1975, but Defendants failed to complete. On 10 December 1975 there was a Court Order for Specific Performance, with a stay for one year, subject to payment of interest and payment of Costs of the action and the sale. Some payments of interest were made, but ceased in August 1976. As Defendants could not pay, the Court fixed 7 February 1977 to issue an order forfeiting the deposit and rescinding the sale. Before it could be heard Mr. S. died on 3 February 1977. In September 1977 the premises were burned down, and the Defendant stated he could do nothing to pay the balance of the purchase money. In 1979. the Defendant's solicitor offered a settlement and to pay the balance due, which was rejected. The Defendants sought to reconstitute the suit. Costdlo J. held that there were no circumstances in the case by which he should not follow the general rule. Accordingly he ordered the Defendants to pay: (I) The balance of the purchase money. (2)The additional sums agreed to be paid at the December 1975 settlement. (3) Interest at rate of 15% from 10 August 1976 to 14 January 1980. (4) All outgoings and costs of previous proceedings — NOVEMBER. L. GJ. v. T.M., J.R. and W.N. Held by McWilliam J.: (1) That the deed of 8 September 1970 (purportedly granting a wayleave to extend a sewer from Plaintiffs garden) had to be discharged because the Defendant Trustees were holding the property on trust for the Purchases. The position could not be altered without his consent. (2) That there was no grant of a