McClure v McClure
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 1951 |
| Date | 20 March 1951 |
| Court | High Court |
Practice - Attachment - Limit of time to comply with Court Order - Order not served within the time limited for compliance - Non-compliance with Order - Enforcement by committal - Application for committal refused.
Appeal from the Circuit Court.
By his civil bill, dated the 11th September, 1947, the plaintiff claimed an injunction directing the defendant to leave certain lands, the property of the plaintiff, and to remove therefrom stock belonging to the defendant which it was alleged were wrongfully being depastured by the defendant thereon. An appearance was entered and a defence was delivered, and upon the hearing of the action on the 22nd April, 1948, judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff. The material portion of the order of the Circuit Court Judge was as follows: "And the Court doth further order that the defendant do leave the lands and remove his stock and effects therefrom within two months from the date of this order, and the said defendant his servants and agents are hereby strictly enjoined and restrained from repetition or continuance of the acts of trespass. . . ." The defendant was present in Court during the proceedings and at the time of pronouncement of the judgment. A certified copy of the said order was served on the defendant on the 26th August, 1948, but this copy did not have endorsed thereon any memorandum or notice of penal consequences for disobedience. A further certified copy of the said order was served on the defendant on the 15th March, 1950, and upon the certified copy served on this latter date there was endorsed the following: "If you, the within-named William McClure, neglect to obey this order by the time therein limited, you will be liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling you to obey the said order." The defendant did not comply with the order and the plaintiff applied by motion on notice for an order for the committal of the defendant for having disobeyed the order of the 22nd April, 1948. The matter came before the Circuit Court on the 7th June, 1950, on the motion of the plaintiff, grounded upon the said order, the affidavit of the plaintiff, and the affidavits of the summons server as to service of the notice of motion and duly endorsed copies of the said order. Upon the hearing of the application, the defendant was committed to prison for twelve months for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laois County Council v Scully
...WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 S57 RSC O.41 r8 WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 S55 CENTURY INSURANCE CO LTD v LARKIN 1910 IR 91 MCCLURE v MCCLURE 1951 1 IR 137 RSC O.70 r68 RSC O.121 r8 O FLOINN PRACTICE & PROCEDURE IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 1ED 1996 968 RSC O.9 r2 RSC O.84 r1 RSC O.84 r1(3) 2005/15MCA -......
-
Star Elms Frames Ltd & Companies Acts
...for the defendant, and that the defendant appeared personally in court. On the other hand, the point at issue in McClure v. McClure [1951] I.R. 137 was not so much the question of personal service as the fact that the order when originally served did not contain a penal endorsement and that......
-
Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Persons Unknown in Occupation of the Property known as 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 7
...have not required service to be personal service. The cases [ Century Insurance Company v. Larkin [1910] 1 IR 91 and McClure v. McClure [1951] IR 137] to which I have referred can be distinguished on their facts. That is not to say that out of an abundance of caution a plaintiff's solicitor......