Ross Company Ltd v Swan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Hanlon
• Judgment Date: 19 May 1981
• Neutral Citation: 1981 WJSC-HC 2086
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 May 1981

ROSS CO.LTD.AND SHORTALL v. SWAN AND OTHERS

BETWEEN:-

ROSS COMPANY LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND PATRICK F.SHORTALL

Plaintiffs

-and-

PATRICK SWAN AND OTHERS

Defendants

1981 WJSC-HC 2086

No. 3027P/1981

THE HIGH COURT

1 O'HanlonJ. delivered the 19th day of May, 1981.

2 In this case an application has been made to the Court for an Order of Attachment and/or an Order for Committal of a large number of the Defendants named in the proceedings, based on alleged disobedience by them of the Order of Costello J., made on the 30th March, 1981 restraining the Defendants (save and except three named Defendants) their servants and agents pending the determination of the proceedings or until further Order from attending in or travelling on to the Plaintiff Company's premises at Raheen, New Ross, County Wexford, and ordering the said Defendants to vacate the said premises.

3 The Affidavit of the Receiver, Patrick F. Shortall, grounding the present aonlication, discloses incidents of deliberate disobedience of that Order by the Defendants upon whom the present Notice of Motion has been served,and no replying Affidavit has been filed by them or on theirbehalf.

4 On a number of occasions the application for attachment or committa was adjourned on the application of the moving party, the Defendants undertaking in the meantime to desist from the conduct complained of, but the Defendants now state that they do not wish to have the matter further adjourned and that they do not propose to continue the undertakings already given.

5 In these circumstances of deliberate disobedience of an Order of the High Court, with no serious effort having been made by the Defendants or any of them to purge their contempt, a decision must be made as to whether the Defendants should now be committed to prison for an indefinite period until they have purged their contempt or until some other circumstances arise which would warrant their discharge fromcustody.

6 No one can fail to be conscious of the catastrophic effect on many of the Defendants and on their families which may flow from loss of their employment with the Plaintiff Company, and no one can blame the Defendants for endeavouring by every lawful means to draw attention to their plight and for seeking to have it alleviated. I have, however, to underline those words, "by every lawful means".

7 The Court before which the Defendants find, themselves is the High Court of the people of Ireland, set up to administer justice fairly between all sections of the community. The laws which the Court enforcesare not laws made by the Judges, but laws freely and democratically adopted and enacted by the people of Ireland.

8 When the Court makes an order and that order is wilfully disobeyed by some person or group of persons, an injury is done and an act of contempt is committed not merely against the Court but against the community as a whole, and the rule of law is undermined to that extent by the person or persons who set themselves up in defiance of the community and its institutions.

9 Tomorrow it may be their turn to come to the High Court seeking.Jstice, and if the authority of the Court is eroded by systematic disregard of its orders, it may in the process become powerless to help them when they need its assistance.

10 The importance of full compliance with the orders of the Court has been generally recognised and in particular the trade union movement has shown itself to be responsible and loyal to the Constitution in this respect. For this reason I am surprised to find two members of the executive of a prominent trade union among those who admit that they have been in deliberate contempt of Court on this occasion, and I think that trade union should reappraise in a serious manner its attitude towards...