The Gazette 1981

DECEMBE R

1981

GAZETTE

vacating the lis pendens but had not dismissed the Plaintiffs claim. The Supreme Court, (per O'Higgins CJ.) stated that the general rule with regard to the operation of a British Statute was that the operation of such a statute extended to the whole of the then United Kingdom and that, if the intention was to limit the operation to a part only, an express limitation was necessary; and, that, in addition, in the absence of an express limitation, an intention to limit the application could be gathered by necessary implication from the construction of the Statute; and that the Lis Pendens Act 1867 was not limited in its application by express terms nor could it be said, because of the forms and terms used in the Act, that by necessary implication an intention not to apply to Ireland could be gathered. The fact that the Act referred to a section of the Companies Act 1862 (which Act expressly did not apply to Ireland) did not of itself indicate that the Act of 1867 was intended not to apply to Ireland. Also, the absence of a proper officer or proper machinery for registering a vacate of a lis pendens could not be said, by necessary implication, to indicate an intention not to apply to this country. Such absence undoubtedly indicated a de- fect in the Statute and a defect which required remedying; but it was noted that four years later, Section 21 of the Judgment (Ireland) Act 1871, re- citing the absence of sufficient pro- vision for registering a vacate of a lis pendens, made good the deficiency. Held (per O'Higgins C J.) that (1) The Lis Pendens Act 1867 was intended to apply to Ireland. (2) On the evidence before it on the motion the High Court was not entitled to conclude that the Plaintiffs claim was not being prosecuted bona fide. Re- gistration of Lis Pendens re- instated. Brendan Flynn v. Oliver Buckley and Anor. — Supreme Court — (per O'Higgins C J.) - 24 April, 1980 - Unreported. MANDAMUS Mandamus — Urban District Coun- cil bye-laws — Mandamus refused to compel a local authority to enforce its bye-laws under the Road Traffic Acts 1961/1968.

The Respondent Urban District Council made bye-laws in December 1979 under the Road Traffic Acts 1961/1968 for the regulation of their car parks. The bye-laws included a prohibition of the sale of goods and trading in the car parks. Some un- authorised persons nevertheless used one of the car parks for trading in breach of the bye-laws. They were prosecuted by the D.P.P. (per the local Gardai) but the prosecutions did not stop illegal trading. The Applicants were ratepaying traders resident in the town of Navan and sought an order of Mandamus to compel the Respondents to enforce their own bye-laws, and, by further prosecutions and permanent or temporary fencing of the Car Parks and other measures of control, to prevent such illegal trading. On an application to make absolute a conditional order of Mandamus, the Respondents having shown cause, Held (per Hamilton, J.) that: (i) The Applicants had sufficient interest in the matter to support their application. (ii) There was no legal obligation on the Respondents to take any of the suggested steps by way of fencing and the like, to enforce compliance with the car park bye-laws. (iii) Failure to comply with the bye- laws constituted a criminal offence and prosecution in respect of them was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, (since the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974) and not for the Respondents. State (at the Prosecution of A.C.C. and others) v. Navan Urban District Council. High Court (per Hamilton J.) 22 February 1980 — unreported. Summaries of judgments pre- pared by Eamonn G. Hall, Brendan Garvan, Daire Hogan, John F. Buckley and William Dundon. Edited by Michael V. O'Mahoney. Refused the Application for an Order of Mandamus accordingly

cclxxv