Cane v Dublin Corporation; Cane v Liffey Syndicate Ltd
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 21 July 1927 |
Docket Number | (1926. No. 3602.) |
Date | 21 July 1927 |
Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
Procedure - Petition against Bill - Appointment of Joint Committee of the Senate and the Dáil - Validity of appointment - Whether evidence before Committee admissibleto vary Committee's report - Petitioner's costs - Taxing Officer's certificate - "Conclusive evidence" - Action to enforce payment - Award of costs without jurisdiction - Leave to defend action - Private Bills Costs Act, 1865 (28 Vict. c. 27), ss. 1, 3, 5 - Private Bills Costs Act,1924 (No. 52 of 1924), s. 5 - Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I., Arts. 20, 22 -Standing Orders of the Dáil and the Seanad relative to Private Business, 1923 - Orders 73, 93, 114.
The Standing Orders of the Dáil and the Seanad relative to Private Business, 1923, were held by the High Court (Sullivan, P., Johnston and O'Byrne, JJ.) to be valid, and a Joint Committee of both Houses appointed thereunder was held to be lawfully constituted and to have full jurisdiction to consider certain Private Bills. When a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas on a Private Bill decide that the preamble is proved, and do not insert in the Bill any provision for the protection of a petitioner, or strike out or alter any provision of the Bill for his protection, he is not entitled, under s. 1 of the Private Bills Costs Act, 1865 (28 Vict., c. 27), to recover his costs from the promoters, although the Committee have unanimously reported that he has bean unreasonably subjected to expense in defending his rights proposed to be interfered with by the Bill, and although his costs have been taxed and a certificate delivered to him by the Taxing Officer, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Callely v Moylan and Others
...ACT 1995 S8(1) ETHICS IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT 1995 S5(1) ETHICS IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT 1995 S7(2) CONSTITUTION ART 40.1 CANE v DUBLIN CORP 1927 IR 582 CONSTITUTION ART 15.15 CONSTITUTION ART 17 CONSTITUTION ART 21 CONSTITUTION ART 22 CONSTITUTION ART 34 ETHICS IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT 1995 S9 DOHER......
-
O'Brien v Clerk of Dáil Éireann
...amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. That cannot be done. 108. To adopt the words of Johnston J. in Cane v. Dublin Corporation [1927] I.R. 582 (at p. 601): “It would be strange, indeed, if a Court of law were to have the power to pass under review the evidence and the proceedings befo......
-
Maguire v Ardagh
...PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF WITNESSES) ACT 1997 S9(b) RSC O.84 r26 RSC O.84 r20 HAUGHEY, RE 1971 IR 217 CANE V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1927 IR 582 CONSTITUTION ART 34.3 CONSTITUTION ART 13.8 CONSTITUTION ART 22.2.5 CONSTITUTION ART 15 CONSTITUTION ART 15.13 CONSTITUTION ART 15.12 CONSTITUTION......
-
Kerins v McGuinness
...the court. That cannot be done.’ 4.13 The Divisional Court continued:- ‘To adopt the words of Johnston J. in Cane v. Dublin Corporation [1927] I.R. 582 (at p. 601): “It would be strange, indeed, if a Court of law were to have the power to pass under review the evidence and the proceedings b......