Bank of Ireland v Rowan

JudgeMr. Justice McWilliam
Judgment Date20 February 1976
Neutral Citation1975 WJSC-HC 118
Docket Number3348 P./1975
CourtHigh Court
Date20 February 1976
Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland
Fergus Rowan

1975 WJSC-HC 118

3348 P./1975

The High Court


Judgment of Mr. Justice McWilliamdelivered this 20th day of February 1976.


The Plaintiffs claim to be the owners and occupiers of Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Westmoreland Street, Dublin, and seek orders restraining the Defendant or his servants or agents from trespassing or committing acts of nuisance in or upon the said premises or any part thereof or upon any other premises of the Plaintiffs. They also seek an order restraining the Defendant or his servants or agents from watching or besetting or picketing the said premises and they claim damages for trespass andnuisance.


The Defendant, who is appearing and conducting his defence in person, by his defence and counterclaim, which I have rather freely interpreted, denies the title of the Plaintiffs to Nos. 1 and 2, Westmoreland Street, and denies the right of the Plaintiffs to the relief claimed, alleges that the Plaintiffs obtained possession of Nos. 1 and 2, Westmoreland Street, by virtue of a debenture obtained wrongfully and by duress and claims the return of these premises to the Defendant. The document refers to a number of matters which appear tobe irrelevant to these proceedings.


On these pleadings, the Defendant has applied to have the case tried with a jury. He referred me to Section 94 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, as amended by section 20 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1928, and to the following cases:- Drinkwater v. Union Bank 1 T.L.R. 362; Everett v. Islington Guardians (1923) 1 K.B. 44; and Jenkins v. Bushby (1891) 1 Ch. 484. He claims to be entitled to a trial with a jury as a matter of right. Of the cases he mentioned, he says that Drinkwater's case shows that there is an absolute right to a jury where fraud is alleged and says that he is alleging fraud. He appears to rely on the other two cases as showing that, in exercising a discretion whether to direct a trial with a jury or not, the Court ought to be influenced by the public importance of the case or the public interest in it. He also referred me to section 6 of an Administration of Justice Act, 1933, but I have been unable to trace this Act and he may be referring to an English statute.


Mr. Fennelly, for the Plaintiffs, who, at my request, very kindly opened so that I might get a reasonably clear outline of the case, referred me to rules 5 & 6 of Order 36 of the Superior Courts Rules and to Walsh v. Ryan (1895) 1 I.R.504 and Secretary of State for Ireland v. Studdart (1902) 1 I.R.240 and argued that it is a matter for my discretion whether I direct a trial with a jury or not, thatthe onus is on the Defendant to establish the propriety of a trial by jury and that, in so far as there is any defence disclosed, it is a question...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT