Beamish & Crawford Ltd v Crowley

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date22 April 1969
Date22 April 1969
Docket Number[1967. NO. 1325 P.]
CourtSupreme Court

Supreme Court

[1967. NO. 1325 P.]
Beamish & Crawford Ltd. v. Crowley
BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD LIMITED
Plaintiffs
and
JOSEPH CROWLEY
Defendant

Practice - Trial - Venue - Notice of trial in Dublin - Defendant seeking trial elsewhere - Rules of the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 72 of 1962), Or. 36,rr. 1, 2, 6 - Constitution, of Ireland, Article 34, section 1.

Appeal from the High Court.

On the 19th December, 1968, the plaintiffs closed the pleadings by delivering their reply, and on the next day they served notice of the trial of the action "in the County of the City of Dublin"by a judge alone. The plaintiffs had inserted the venue, using the words quoted supra, in a space provided for that purpose on the version of the form of notice of trial which they had acquired from their law stationers. Order 36, rr. 1 and 2 (see p. 144, post) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962, provide that all proceedings in the High Court shall be tried in Dublin unless otherwise ordered or provided. The forms of notice of trial authorised by Order 36, r. 15, and specified at Nos. 16 and 17 of Appendix C to the Rules of 1962, do not provide a space for the venue of trial as they rely on the provisions of Order 36, r. 1, which require a trial in Dublin unless otherwise ordered or provided.

By notice of motion dated the 10th January, 1969, the defendant applied to the High Court for an order setting aside the said notice of trial and directing that the trial should be held in the City of Cork. The defendant's application was heard and refused by the High Court (Murnaghan J.) on the 3rd February, 1969. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court from the judgment and order of the High Court.

The defendant was a monthly tenant of licensed premises in the County of Cork and the plaintiffs, who were well-known brewers in that county, were the landlords of the premises. A term of the tenancy agreement obliged the defendant to sell only beers and other liquors which had been supplied to him by the plaintiffs. In their action the plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the defendant from acting in breach of the said term, and in his defence the defendant alleged that the liquors supplied to him by the plaintiffs were not of merchantable quality. The plaintiffs served notice of the trial of the action in the City of Dublin by a judge alone. The defendant then applied in the High Court for an order setting aside the notice of trial which had been served and directing that the trial of the action should take place in the City of Cork; which venue was more convenient, the defendant submitted, for himself and the intended witnesses. The defendant's application was refused by the High Court. On appeal by the defendant it was

Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J., Walsh and FitzGerald JJ.), in allowing the appeal, 1, that on the facts the balance of convenience was clearly in favour of a trial of the action in the City of Cork although the action was to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.

2. That the possibility of adverse publicity for the plaintiffs' goods was not a factor to be taken into consideration since the provisions of the Constitution resulted, apart from certain exceptions, in publicity being inseparable from the administration of justice.

3. That the adjournment of legal argument to the City of Dublin, if that were to become desirable, would not contravene an order directing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Persons Unknown in Occupation of the Property known as 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 7 & Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Persons Unknown in Occupation of the Property known as 31 Richmond Avenue, Dublin 3
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 July 2023
    ...provided for in Article 34.1. It is sufficient here to note the comments of Ó Dálaigh C.J. in Beamish and Crawford Ltd. v. Crowley [1969] IR 142 at 146: “…publicity, deserved or otherwise is an inseparable from the administration of justice in public; this is a principle which, as the Const......
  • Irish Times Ltd v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 2 April 1998
    ...General for England and Wales v. Brandon Book Publishers Ltd. [1986] I.R. 597; [1987] I.L.R.M. 135. Beamish & Crawford Ltd. v. Crowley [1969] I.R. 142. Cullen v. Toibín [1984] I.L.R.M. 577. D. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] 2 I.R. 465. Heaney v. Ireland [1997] 1 I.L.R.M. 117. In ......
  • Re Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 April 2002
    ...38 CONSTITUTION ART 40 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2 KENNEDY V IRELAND 1987 IR 587 HAUGHEY, RE 1971 IR 217 BEAMISH & CRAWFORD LTD V CROWLEY 1969 1 IR 142 1 Mr. Justice McCracken delivered the 24th day of April, 2 By an Order dated 22nd September 1999 in these proceedings Johnson J ordered: "Pur......
  • Ryan Air Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 2 May 1989
    ...S45(3) COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S34(2) REDBREAST PRESERVING CO (IRL) LTD, IN RE 91 ILTR 12 BEAMISH & CRAWFORD V CROWLEY 1969 IR 142 Synopsis: CONSTITUTION Courts Administration of justice - Publicity - Restriction - Court's discretion - Proceedings in camera - Conditions pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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