State (Murphy) v Judge Deale

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 November 1964
• Date: 08 November 1964
• Court: High Court

The State (Murphy) v. Judge Deale.

THE STATE (At the Prosecution of DERMOT M. MURPHY)

and

Circuit Court Judge KENNETH E. L. DEALE. In the Matter of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts, 1961 and 1962,And in the Matter of the Courts of Justice Acts,1924 to 1961 (1)

High Court.

Jurisdiction - Circuit Court - Interpleader - Order of Circuit Court made without jurisdiction - Certiorari - Statute - Interpretation - Failure of statute to specify particular Circuit Judge to exercise jurisdiction - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 (No. 39 of 1961), s. 22, sub-ss. 1 (d) and 7.

Practice - Interpleader - Relief sought by judgment debtor - Claim against judgment debtor by assignee of judgment creditor in same action - Further claim against judgment debtor by receiver by way of equitable execution appointed in separate action - Necessity for applicant for relief by way of interpleader to be, or expect to be, sued by two or more parties - Rules of the Circuit Court, 1950 (S. I., 1950, No. 179), Or. 39, r. 1.

A judgment debtor duly paid part of the judgment debt, which was due on foot of a High Court judgment, dated the 22nd May, 1962, to an assignee of the judgment creditor, but the balance of the judgment debt remained unpaid. On the 31st May, 1962, the Judge of the Circuit Court for the Northern Circuit appointed a receiver by way of equitable execution over so much of the judgment debt as would satisfy a sum of money due on foot of an order made in a separate Circuit Court action. The judgment debtor issued an interpleader summons in the Circuit Court in the Eastern Circuit, which summons was served on the said assignee and on the receiver. Neither the assignee nor the receiver entered an appearance to that summons and the judgment debtor applied by motion on notice to the Circuit Judge of the Eastern Circuit, sitting in Dundalk, for an order declaring that the claims of the assignee and of the receiver were barred. The assignee and the receiver appeared at the hearing of the motion when the assignee submitted that the Circuit Judge had no jurisdiction to determine the matter, but on the 15th January, 1963, the Circuit Judge made an order declaring the receiver to be entitled to the unpaid balance of the said judgment debt. The assignee obtained a conditional order of certiorari to bring up into the High Court for the purpose of being quashed the order dated the 15th January, 1963, on the grounds (a) that the Circuit Judge had acted without and in excess of jurisdiction in making the said order in that the judgment debtor was not, and could not expect to be, sued by two or more parties, and (b) that, the receiver having been appointed by an order of the Circuit Court Judge of the Northern Circuit, all proceedings and applications under such receivership ought to have been made to the Circuit Court Judge of the Northern Circuit. Cause against the conditional order was shown by the judgment debtor and by the receiver. On the hearing of the motion to make absolute the conditional order of certiorari, notwithstanding the cause shown, it was

Held by the High Court (Davitt P., Murnaghan and Teevan JJ.) 1, that the judgment debtor was not being sued by two or more parties nor could he expect to be so sued owing to the nature of the respective remedies of an assignee of a judgment debt and a receiver by way of equitable execution:H. Stevenson & Son Ltd. v. Brownell[1912] 2 Ch. 344 considered;

2, Accordingly, the order of the 15th January, 1963, had been made without jurisdiction;

3, The cause shown against the conditional order of certiorari should be disallowed and the conditional order made absolute.

Semble: Jurisdiction in interpleader proceedings, which is vested in the Circuit Court by s. 22, sub-s. 7, of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions)

Act, 1961, may be exercised, pending statutory or other provision, by the Circuit Court judge of the county where one of the claimants ordinarily resides or carries on any profession, business or occupation.

Motion on Notice.

The prosecutor, Dermot M. Murphy, claimed to be entitled as assignee to a judgment debt which had been adjudged by the High Court to be payable by Patrick Fegan, who was the defendant in a High Court action and who had paid portion of the judgment debt to the prosecutor. Subsequent to the date of the High Court judgment, William B. Sheridan was appointed receiver by way of equitable execution over so much of the said judgment debt as would satisfy a sum of money due on foot of an order made in a separate Circuit Court action.

Patrick Fegan issued an interpleader summons in the Circuit Court and served the summons on the prosecutor and on William B. Sheridan. An order was made by the Circuit Court Judge (His Honour Judge Deale) in the interpleader proceedings declaring William B. Sheridan to be entitled to the unpaid balance of the said judgment debt. The prosecutor thereupon obtained in the High Court a conditional order of certiorari to bring up into the High Court for the purpose of being quashed the order containing such declaration on the ground (inter alia) that the said order had been made without jurisdiction. Cause was shown by Patrick Fegan and by William B. Sheridan, and the prosecutor applied by motion on notice for an order to make absolute the said conditional order, notwithstanding the cause shown.

The...