Attorney-General (O'Duffy) v Myddletons, Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Barton, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 July 1907
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)
• Docket Number: (1906. No. 996.)
• Date: 18 July 1907

Attorney-General (O'Duffy)

and

Myddletons, Limited.

Barton, J.

(1906. No. 996.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1907.

Dentist — Company — Registration under Companies Acts — Use of word “dentist” — Dentists Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 33) — Fraud — Injunction.

Although the word “person” in section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1878, has been held not to include artificial person, and not to apply to limited companies, a limited company is not at liberty to use the word “dentist” or its synonyms in such a way as to amount to a false representation, calculated to induce the public to believe that the individuals whom it comprises or employs are qualified “dentists,” and may be restrained from doing so by injunction at the suit of the Attorney-General.

In this action the plaintiff in the statement of claim averred—

1. That the defendants Alfred Myddleton, Amy Myddleton, William Bowles, James Cochrane, William Greenlee, John Walters, and Robert G. Gordon, wrongfully and fraudulently and with intent to injure and deceive the public, and to injure and defraud the persons registered under the Dentists Act, 1878, conspired together to form, and did form and procure to be registered the defendant Company, Myddletons, Limited.

2. That the defendant Company, Myddletons, Limited, was incorporated on the 28th June, 1902, and was registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900, as a Company limited by shares, having a nominal capital of £1000, divided into 1000 shares of £1 each, all of which were allotted to the defendants other than the defendant Company, and were then held by them. That 993 shares had been allotted to the defendant, Alfred Myddleton, for an alleged consideration, other than cash, and that one share was allotted to each defendant, other than the Company, for an alleged consideration of £1.

3. That the defendants Alfred Myddleton and Amy Myddleton were the directors, and the defendant Alfred Myddleton was the manager and secretary of the defendant Company, and that the defendants, other than the Company, were the signatories to the memorandum of association of, and the only shareholders in, the defendant Company.

4. That among the objects, as stated in the memorandum of association of the defendant Company, for which the incorporation of the defendant Company was procured by the other defendants were the following: to carry on in any part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere all or any of the trades or businesses of surgeon-dentists, dentistry, teeth specialists, and manufacturers and dealers in dental materials and appliances, and any other business which, in the opinion of the Company, could be conveniently carried on by the Company in connexion with the above or any of them, and to employ properly qualified persons to act on the Company's behalf as surgeon-dentists or otherwise in connexion with the said business aforesaid, or any other trade or business which might be carried on by the Company in any manner in which such persons might act if they or he were carrying on upon his or their own behalf any of the businesses of the Company.

5. That in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid, the defendant Company had been, and was still being, extensively advertised in Belfast, Lisburn, Lurgan, Portadown, Downpatrick, and other towns in the north of Ireland as Myddletons, Limited surgeon-dentists and specialists in American dentistry, and the public were by such advertisements bidden to ask for Messrs. Myddleton, the largest dentists in Ireland; and that these advertisements and handbills of the defendant Company were prepared and issued with the object of inducing the public and customers of the defendant Company to believe that the business of the Company was conducted and carried on by persons registered under the Dentists Act, 1878, or specially qualified to practise dentistry.

6. That the defendant Company was formed and procured to be registered as aforesaid by the signatories to the memorandum of association for the purpose of imposing upon and deceiving the public, by falsely representing to them that the business of the Company was conducted or carried on by persons registered under the Dentists Act, 1878, and for the purpose of injuring and defrauding persons duly registered under that Act, by depriving them of the fees and charges for the performance of dental operations and for dental attendance and advice, which were by the said Act made recoverable only by persons registered thereunder, or by legally qualified medical practitioners, and for the purpose of taking and using the title dentist and surgeon-dentist against the provisions in that behalf in the Dentists Act, 1878.

7. That the defendant Company was not registered, or...