O'Connor v Dwyer and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1932
• Date: 12 May 1932
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

O'Connor and Others v. Dwyer and Others

MARY O'CONNOR AND OTHERS

Plaintiffs

and

WILLIAM C. DWYER AND OTHERS

Defendants.

Supreme Court.

Poor law - Relief of destitute poor - Right of destitute poor to "due relief" - Adequacy of "due relief" - Discretion of Board of Guardians - Necessity of resolution before granting relief - Power of Court to review decision of Board of Guardians or to grant declaration of rights - Poor Relief (Ir.) Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), sect. 41 - Poor Relief (Ir.) Act, 1847 (10Vict. c. 31), sect. 1 and 3 - General Order, 18th December, 1882, Article14, clause 6.

The plaintiffs claimed to be destitute poor persons disabled from labour by reason of infirmity, that was to say, severe sickness and general debility or bodily defect. Each plaintiff claimed 1, a declaration that the plaintiff and/or the family of the plaintiff was by law entitled to receive from the defendants due relief; 2, a declaration that the amount, if any, theretofore received by way of relief was inadequate for the subsistence of the plaintiff and for the family of the plaintiff, and did not constitute due relief; 3, an inquiry as to what sums ought to have been paid by way of such due relief; and 4, an order for payment of the sums found due. The defendants were sued as the persons in whom there had been vested by law the property, powers and duties of the Guardians of the Poor of the Dublin Union.

Held by Meredith J. that the plaintiffs were entitled to the first declaration claimed but not to the other relief sought.

Held by the Supreme Court (FitzGibbon and Murnaghan JJ.; Kennedy C.J. dissenting) that, on the construction of the statutes and regulations relating to poor relief, no relief could be granted unless it had been passed by a resolution of the Board of Guardians or other body entitled to exercise the powers of the Board; that there was nothing in these statutes and regulations that enabled a Court to reverse a decision bona fide arrived at by a Board of Guardians, whether as to an applicant's right to relief or as to the amount to be granted; and that, there being no allegation that the defendants did not act bona fide, there was no ground on which the Court should make a declaration such as that granted by Meredith J.

Trial of Action.

The action was brought by Mary O'Connor, Mary Ann Healy, Edward Tierney, and Michael Dempsey (a person of unsound mind not so found) by Sarah Dempsey, his wife and next friend, against William C. Dwyer, P. J. Hernon and J. Power, Commissioners, to whom were transferred the powers and duties of the Council of the County Borough of Dublin, that Council having been dissolved by Order of the Minister for Local Government.

The facts were set out in statement of claim, which was as follows:—

1. The defendants are, and are sued as, the persons having vested in them by law the property, powers and duties of the Guardians of the Poor of the Dublin Union.

2. It is, and was at all material times, the statutory duty of the defendants to make provision for the due relief of the plaintiffs and their families, who are chargeable as paupers to the Dublin Union, and the plaintiffs have suffered damage by the defendants' neglect of their said duty.

3. The plaintiff, Mary O'Connor, a spinster, resides and has for many years resided within the Dublin Union, and is and has for three years last past and upwards been, as the defendants well know, a destitute poor person disabled from labour by reason of infirmity, that is to say, severe rheumatism and general debility, confining the said plaintiff within doors.

4. From August, 1926, to June, 1928, the said plaintiff made repeated applications to the defendants through their relieving officer, one, T. Madden, for due relief pursuant to the statutes entitling her in that behalf, but her said applications were persistently ignored or rejected by the defendants.

5. In or about the month of June, 1928, the defendants began to pay, and they have since paid, to the said plaintiff a pittance of 5s. a week by way of relief; the said weekly sum is insufficient for the subsistence of the plaintiff and does not constitute due relief of her said destitution.

6. On divers occasions since June, 1928, applications have been made by or on behalf of the said plaintiff to the defendants directly and through the said relieving officer to increase the said weekly sum so that the said plaintiff might have due relief, but the said applications have been ignored or rejected by the defendants.

7. The plaintiff, Mary Ann Healy, a widow, resides and has for many years resided within the Dublin Union, and is and has for many years last past been, as the defendants well know, a destitute poor person permanently disabled from labour by reason of infirmity, that is to say, myocarditis and severe rheumatism and general debility: she is aged 63 years and upwards.

8. Repeated applications have been made by and on behalf of the said plaintiff to the defendants directly and through their relieving officer, one, R. Blackburne, for due relief pursuant to the statutes entitling her in that behalf, but the said applications have persistently been ignored or rejected by the defendants.

9. The plaintiff, Edward Tierney, resides and has for many years resided with his family, a wife and two young children, within the Dublin Union, and is and has for many years last past been, as the defendants well know, a destitute poor person permanently disabled from labour by reason of infirmity and bodily defect, that is to say, unfitness for work by reason of prolonged malnutrition and also sycosis so that he has been and is unable to support his said family, whom he is liable by law to maintain and who are wholly dependent upon him. The said plaintiff also suffers and has for many months suffered from severe sickness being thereby deprived of earning a subsistence to support himself and his said family.

10. Repeated applications have been made by and on behalf of the said plaintiff, Edward Tierney, directly and through his relieving officer, one, P. Early, for due relief for the said plaintiff and his family pursuant to the statutes in that behalf. On some occasions small sums of money by way of relief or special relief in the form of food have been granted. On other occasions the said applications have been ignored. But no relief has at any time been given sufficient for the subsistence of the said plaintiff or of his said wife and children, or such as constituted due relief of their destitution within the meaning of the statutes in that behalf.

11. The plaintiff, Michael Dempsey, is a person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition, and has for many years resided within the Dublin Union, and has for 4 years and upwards been confined as a person of unsound mind in the Asylum of the Dublin Union.

12. The said plaintiff has for 5 years last past and upwards been, as the defendants well know, a destitute poor person permanently disabled from labour by reason of his said mental deficiency, and disabled from labour by reason of severe sickness, that is to say, his said unsoundness of mind, and thereby deprived of earning a subsistence whereby to support himself and his family, a wife and four children under 10 years of age residing within the Dublin Union, whom he is liable by law to maintain and who are wholly dependent on him.

13. As from a certain date in or about the year 1923, which the said plaintiff, Michael Dempsey, is unable to specify further until after discovery, an allowance was made by way of relief to the said wife and children of 17s. 6d. a week. The said allowance of 17s. 6d. a week was reduced to 15s. a week in the year 1925, and subsequently the said allowance was entirely discontinued for a period of six months. After the said last-mentioned period small allowances by way of relief were granted from time to time. None of the relief granted as aforesaid was at any time sufficient for the subsistence of the said wife and children or such as constituted due relief of their destitution within the meaning of the statutes in that behalf.

14. Repeated applications have been made by and on behalf of the said wife and children to the defendants directly and through their relieving officer, one, R. Blackburne, for due relief for the said plaintiff's said family pursuant to the statutes in that behalf, but the defendants have persistently ignored or rejected the said applications save to the extent mentioned in paragraph 13 hereof.

15. By reason of the premises the plaintiff, Mary O'Connor, and the plaintiff, Mary Ann Healy, and the plaintiff, Edward Tierney, and his said family and the said family of the plaintiff, Michael Dempsey, and each of them, have and has through the defendants' neglect and breaches of their statutory duty in that behalf as aforesaid been deprived of the due relief to which they and each of them are and is by law entitled, in consequence whereof they and each of them have and has suffered frequently from lack of clothing, from cold, from hunger, and from starvation and their health and vitality has been grievously and permanently impaired, and they have been reduced to conditions of the most abject misery.

Each of the plaintiffs claim:—

(1) A declaration that the plaintiff and/or the family of the plaintiff is by law entitled to receive from the defendants due relief.

(2) A declaration that the amount, if any, heretofore received as aforesaid by way of relief is inadequate for the subsistence of the plaintiff and for the family of the plaintiff and does not constitute due relief.

(3) An enquiry as to what sums, if any, have been, and what sums ought to have been, and ought to be, paid by way of such due relief.

(4) An order for payment by the defendants to or for the plaintiff and/or the family of the plaintiff (as the Court may direct) of the amount of the sums respectively so found due.

(5) Damages.

(6) Further or other...