The Gazette 1985

JULY/AUGUST

1985

GAZETTE

jurisdiction when proceedings that have been initiated are wrongly construed as being or containing a claim for damages at common law for wrongful dismissal. In both cases the necessary pre-condition for the exercise of jurisdiction is wanting. (3) The order made under s. 15(3) was a nullity, having been made without juris- diction since the proceedings relied on did not in reality contain a claim for damages at common law for wrongful dismissal. In a separate although concurring judgment Griffin J. added that although the employers were fully aware of the true position when the hearing before the Tribunal took place, they nevertheless sought to take advantage of the fact that the word "dismissal" had been used in error in the Plenary Summons, and the Tribunal accepted their submission. The Court disallowed the cause shown and granted an absolute order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Tribunal. No order was made on the application for an Order of Mandamus since it had not been suggested that the Tribunal would now be unwilling to decide the statutory claim on its merits. The State (Ferris) -v- Employment Appeals Tribunal and Royal Liver Friendly Society - Supreme Court (per Henchy J. new. diss.). 10 December, 1984 - unreported. Damian McHugh The Defendants consented to the continuation of an injunction obtained by the Liquidator of the Plaintiff companies, subject to one proviso, that they would accept the Liquidator's undertaking as to damages, provided that if called upon to pay, the damages would be given priority under Order 74, Rule 126. This Order of the Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 1) 1966, as amended, provides for the priority of payments after the deduction of "fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realising or getting in the assets . . . " The Defendants sought to have any damages that might be awarded granted priority under Order. It was HELD that the undertaking as to damages given by the Liquidator should be accepted by the Court without any order as to priority. The question of damages was, at this stage, hypothetical. The question of priority therefore could not be dealt with at this stage, but would have to be the subject of a further applica- tion at a later stage after the assessment of damages. The question of priority was not ruled out in the Supreme Court case In Re VanHool McArdle Ltd. (24/2/83), which dealt with priority after the INSOLVENCY Liquidation — injunction obtained by Liquidator — priority as to undertaking for damages.

payment of the "expenses" referred to in Order 74. Irish Commercial Society Limited (In Liquidation) and Others-v- Peter Plunkett and Others - High Court (per CarrollJ.). 6 June, 1984 -unreported. John P. O'Malley

Copies of judgments in the above cases are available on request from the Society's Library. The photo- copying rate is lOp per page.

viii