The Attorney-General (At The Relation of O'Duffy) v Mr. Appleton, Surgeon-Dentist, Ltd, and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeM. R.
Judgment Date15 February 1905
CourtChancery Division (Ireland)
Date15 February 1905
The Attorney-General (at the Relation of O'Duffy)
and
Mr. Appleton, Surgeon-Dentist, Limited, and Others.

M. R.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1907.

Dentist — Registration — Joint stock company — Registration under Companies Acts — Dentists Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 33) — Information — Public interest — Fraudulent evasion of statute — Injunction — Jurisdiction — Costs.

Held, that, the Attorney-General, suing in the public interest to prevent an admitted fraudulent attempt to evade statutory provisions, was entitled to an injunction, and that the costs of the proceedings should be paid by the special defendants.

Motion for judgment in default of defence.

This action was brought by the Attorney-General, at the relation of Mr. Kevin E. O'Duffy (Honorary Secretary of the Irish Branch of the British Dental Association), and the writ of summons claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant company from carrying on business and from advertising for custom under, and from taking or using, the name of “Mr. Appleton, Surgeon-Dentist,” or any name or style containing the name “dentist” either alone or in combination with any other word or words, or any name, title, addition, or description, implying or reasonably calculated to induce the public to believe that the business carried on by the said company is conducted or carried on by a person or persons registered under the Dentists Act, 1878, or specially qualified to practise dentistry. The defendant company was a one-man company incorporated under the Companies Acts on the 21st March, 1904, and registered “Mr. Appleton, Surgeon-Dentist, Limited.” The memorandum of association stated the following (amongst other) objects for which the company was established:—(a) To carry on, through competent persons, the business of dentists and dental surgeons in such parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as the directors shall from time to time appoint, and in particular, Bangor, County Down, and Belfast; and for that purpose to employ suitable persons, and purchase, hire, and procure suitable instruments, furniture, and fittings; (b) To purchase, sell, and deal in artificial teeth and fillings, and to manufacture same in large or small quantities; (k) To adopt such means of making known the products and business of the company as may seem expedient, and in particular by advertising in the Press, by circulars, and by publication of books and pamphlets.

The statement of claim averred that the company was wrongfully and fraudulently formed with intent to injure and deceive the public and to injure and defraud persons registered under the Dentists Act. It also stated that the defendant company had been extensively advertised in the north of Ireland, and by reason of the formation and advertising of the company under their registered name the public had been, and were liable to be, led to believe that the business of the company was being carried on by persons registered under the Dentists Act, 1878, and that there was concerned with the management of the company one Mr. Appleton, who was a person registered under the said Act, and entitled to take or use the title of surgeon-dentist. It also alleged that the defendant company was formed and procured to be registered for an unlawful purpose—namely, for the purpose of imposing upon and deceiving the public by falsely representing to them that the business of the company was conducted or carried on by persons registered under the Dentists Act, 1878; and for the purpose of injuring and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Attorney-General (O'Duffy) v Myddletons, Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 18 Julio 1907
    ...other paragraphs of the prayer of the statement of claim, which shall be set off. J. MAC M. (1) [1904] 2 I. R. 27. (2) Ibid. 634. (3) [1907] 1 I. R. 252. (1) [1904] 2 I. R. (2) 5 A. C. 857. (3) [1907] 1 I. R. 252. (4) [1904] 2 I. R. 634. (5) 20 T. L. R. 436. (1) [1904] 2 I. R. 27. (1) [1904......
  • Meath County Council v Murray
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 19 Mayo 2017
    ...of a breach of a criminal law ( The Attorney-General (at the relation of O'Duffy) v. Mr. Appleton, Surgeon-Dentist, Limited, and ors [1907] 1 I.R. 252; Attorney General v. Paperlink [1984] I.L.R.M. 373; Mahon v. Butler at p. 378). As a result it is suggested that persons, including a planni......
  • Byrne, Appellant; Rogers, Respondent
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 30 Enero 1910
    ...2 Ch. 23. (3) 24 R. (Just. Cas.) 77. (4) [1892] 1 Q. B. 557. (1) [1908] 2 K. B. 248. (2) 68 J. P. 435. (3) [1904] 2 I. R. 634. (4) [1907] 1 I. R. 252. (1) [1909] 1 K. B. (2) [1809] 2 Ch. 23. (3) [1892] 1 Q. B. 557. (4) [1908] 2 K. B. 248. (1) [1909] 1 K. B. 38. (1) [1909] 1 K. B. 38. (1) [1......
  • Attorney General v Paperlink Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 Enero 1984
    ...provision notwithstanding that the breach was also an offence: Attorney General (O'Duffy) v. Mr. Appleton, Surgeon Dentist Ltd. [1907] 1 I.R. 252 applied; dictum in Attorney General v. ChaudryWLR [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1614 approved. 5. That in entertaining such a suit brought by the Attorney Gene......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT