Moore and Others v Attorney-General and Others (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1929 |
| Date | 01 July 1929 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
Security for costs - Application to the Supreme Court - Respondents in appeal to Supreme Court applying for order -Appellants the unsuccessful co-defendants of the Attorney-General - Attorney-General sued as representing the public - No appeal by Attorney-General - Competence of applicants' appeal -Position of Attorney-General - Poverty of appellants - Expense of action and appeal - Whether "special circumstances" justifying an order -Rules of the Supreme Court (Ir.), 1905, Or. LVIII, r. 15.
The plaintiffs brought an action for the purpose of establishing the title which they claimed to a several fishery in the tidal portion of the River Erne, in the County of Donegal, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the said fishery or obstructing the plaintiffs in the enjoyment thereof. The Attorney-General was sued as representing the public and the State. The defendants, other than the Attorney-General, were fishermen who challenged the validity of the plaintiffs' title and asserted a public right to the fishery. Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiffs' claim to a several fishery and an injunction was granted against the defendants (other than the Attorney-General) (reported [1929] I. R. 191). The defendants, other than the Attorney-General, served notice of appeal against the entire judgment, but the Attorney-General served notice of appeal limited to the matter of his liability, under the judgment, to pay the costs of the action, and did not otherwise challenge the judgment. The plaintiffs applied to the Supreme Court for an order that the appellants (the defendants in the action other than the Attorney-General) should give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Incorporated Law Society of Ireland v Carroll
......Carroll| ATTORNEY GENERAL Functions Public - Rights - Enforcement - ... 2 IR 542 SOLICITORS ACT 1954 S77(1) MOORE V AG 1930 IR 471 SPUC V COOGAN 1990 ILRM 70 ... a service in regard to "compensation for injuries", that no fee is charged for advice, and that no fee is charged ...In the case of Moore and Others v. The Attorney General 1930 I.R. 471 , Kennedy C.J., ......
-
Edward Walsh and Another v County Council for County of Sligo
....../Respondent [2013] IESC 48 Appeal No. 089/2011 THE SUPREME COURT ... Blount v Layard [1891] 2 Ch 681; Simpson v Attorney General [1904] AC 476; Attorney General v Antrobus [1904] 2 Ch 188; ... Co Ltd v Attorney General (1898) 32 ILTR 95 ; Moore v Attorney General (No 2) [1930] 1 IR 471 ; Incorporated ...; over a suburban garden (see Bruen v Murphy and others (High Court unreported 11 th March 1980)); or along a ......
-
SALTHILL PROPERTIES Ltd v ROYAL BANK of SCOTLAND Plc
...Comhlucht Páipéar Ríomhaireachta Teo v Udarás na Gaeltachta [1990] 1 IR 320, Pearson v Naydler [1977] 1 WLR 899 and Moore v AG (No2) [1929] IR 544 considered; Pitt v Bolger [1996] 1 IR 108, Maher v Phelan [1996] 1 IR 95, Proetta v Neil [1996] 1 IR 100, European Fashion Products Ltd v Ee......
-
Chris Gordon v The Irish Racehorse Trainers Association
...make such an order if the appeal involves an issue of law of general public importance ( Moore & ors. v. Attorney General & ors. (No. 2) [1929] IR 544). (iv) While poverty or insufficiency of assets on the part of an appellant is a necessary precondition to the making of such an order, it i......