Call McGarr Solicitors on: 01 6351580

Constituencies Constitutional Challenge – Election result

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

 

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

    28th May 2007

    Although it was not, and is not, an issue in the litigation, it would not be inappropriate to report the outcome of the General Election for the two Plaintiff candidates, in their respective constituencies.

    a) Catherine Murphy just lost her seat in a close race;

    b) Finian McGrath retained his seat;

Personal Injury – Cancer

For Employers’ duties see HERE

A disturbing pattern of deaths in laboratory workers at Teagasc was revealed in 1989 in an epidemiological report prepared for the organisation three years before. The organisation gives an advisory service to Irish farmers on agricultural matters. 11 workers had died from rare blood and brain cancers. The study did not pinpoint the cause of the deaths. The Teagasc workers were above the average age of Irish laboratory workers. Teagasc had been in possession of the report for three years before releasing it to the employees. Contemporaneously, Teagasc declined an opportunity of being included in a survey of European laboratory workers undertaken by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The survey was to detect occupational levels and causes of cancer in such workers.

A few days after the publication of the Teagasc incidents the National Industrial Safety Organisation called for a nationwide survey of the incidence of cancer and other health problems in laboratory and research workers. It was said that they should be continually monitored at the expense of the employer.

Occupational cancer is avoidable.

Defamation on the Web

The use of the World Wide Web has implications for the law relating to conflict of laws.
This is the body of law developed to address questions generated by the involvement in a legal issue of one or more legal systems or, more correctly, legal jurisdictions.

Publication on the Web involves publication everywhere the material is accessed. Therefore publication will, potentially if not actually, invoke the legal rules of every place of access. Eoin O’Dell publishes in Ireland and is, therefore, in the view of Irish law, subject to Irish law.

If the Great Firewall of China is incorrect and Mr. Eoin O’Dell’s site is not blocked from access by the people of China, then, as viewed by Irish law, the law of China applies to his publications there.

Of course the law of China may not see matters in that way.

For example, the law of the United States takes the view that the applicable law (and jurisdiction) is the law of the place of “uploadingâ€? or “hostingâ€?.

UK and Australian law corresponds with Irish law.

However the UK courts have, in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co, ameliorated this readiness to assume jurisdiction by requiring the Plaintiff to prove substantial (certainly “non-minorâ€?) readership and therefore substantial damage, in the UK, before being permitted to proceed with the action.

This case was in no way out of kilter with Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co., an earlier Australian case.

Mr. Gutnick lived in Australia and was libeled by the Defendants on the Internet. The Defendant objected to the courts of Australia having jurisdiction, not by reference to the extent of publication, or otherwise, in Australia, but on the grounds that the “uploadingâ€? or “hostingâ€? took place in the USA.

This involved the Defendant appealing to the Australian court to accord sole jurisdiction to the US courts, an appeal which, not surprisingly, was unsuccessful. The Defendant settled with the Plaintiff for a substantial amount.

Assume that Eoin O’Dell falls foul of the law of China, what would it mean to him if he were accused in a Chinese court of libeling some citizen of China? Probably nothing, assuming he intends never to travel to China. An adverse judgment in such a court is not enforceable in Ireland, where Eoin O’Dell lives.

Eoin O’Dell has the advantage, relative to a business like Dow Jones & Co., of not conducting business in China or of having any assets in that jurisdiction.

It is this latter point that is likely to determine the practicality of proceedings commenced in distant jurisdictions, rather than the exposure to many systems of law.

Constituencies Constitutional Challenge – Correction

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

 

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

    22nd May 2007

    1. On 18th May 2007, (in Distillery Court 1) the High Court (Clarke J.) reserved judgment in the action and designated 7th June 2007 for the delivery of judgment.

The Environment

It’s time to change the name of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

An agency that, as it says itself, permits and licences [polluting] activities should not hold itself out as a protecting body.

True, the Office of Environmental Enforcement is part of the EPA, but it ought not to be, for many reasons, not least in the light of what we read in the report of Case C-494/01, (Commission of the European Communities v Ireland) ( a case concerning 12 sample indictments of the Defendant’s breaches of EU environmental law), that the Defendant produced a letter from the EPA concerning the dumping by Limerick City Corporation [now Limerick City Council], of construction and demolition waste in protected wetlands, a letter which the court quoted as saying

…the EPA stated in a letter of 23 January 1998 that depositing of that kind amounted to recovery operations not requiring authorisation.

Constituencies Constitutional Challenge – Judgment

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

 

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

    21st May 2007

    1. On 18th May 2007, (in Distillery Court 1) the High Court (Clarke J.) reserved judgment in the action and designated 2nd June 2007 for the delivery of judgment.

Personal Injury – Skin Disease

For Employers’ duties see HERE

It is generally agreed that skin disease is the commonest occupationally-caused disease. According to the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive it accounted for 59% of all reported occupational disease in 1978-79. This reflects the Irish experience in proportional terms, although the total Irish figures are deceptively low.

Although the skin is a remarkable and complex organ, the stresses applied to it in some workplaces are extreme and it is unable to perform its usual valuable functions. These include the provision of a barrier to harmful bacteria and retention of liquid in the body tissues.

The skin has a number of layers, the uppermost consisting of a thin layer of acid fat soluble secretions from the sebaceous glands. Solvents or prolonged immersion in water will remove this layer. The lower layers are subject to damage from acids, abrasions, cuts, and solvents.

The effects vary but dermatitis is by far the most frequent manifestation, representing 80% to 90% of the problem. It may arise from a number of causes, including physical sources such as heat or cold or excessive exposure to water, but most of it is caused by contact with a chemical agent of one or more kinds. Some of these will cause dermatitis in every person exposed to sufficient concentrations, while others are active only as an allergic reaction in sensitive individuals. The symptoms are similar whether the agent is irritant or allergic. They can consist of redness, rash, dry scaling, wet weeping, sores or crust formation.

The agents are very numerous; they include cement, rubber, paint, some woods, tars, dyes, detergents, bricks, oil, leather.

The following also cause dermatitis;

1,2-dichloroethylene, 1-2-dichloroethane
2,4-dinitro-O-cresol, Acetates
Acetic anhydride, Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile, Alkalis
Allyl alcohol, Anthraquinone
Antinomy, Barium Compounds
Benzene Hexachloride (Lindane), Calcium cyanamide
Chloride of Lime, Chlorinated biphenyls
Chlorinated naphthalenes, Chloronitroanilines
Chloronitrobenzenes, Chlorprene
Dinitro-phenols, Epoxy resins
Ethyl acetate, Hexachlorobenzene
Hexamethylene tetramine, Hydroquinone
Isocyanates, Malathion
Naphtols, Pentachlorphenol
Phenols, Picric acid
Piperazine, Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Pyridine, Tetryl
Tin compounds, Toluene di-isocyanate
Vinyl acetate, Xylenols

Dermatitis is caused by exposure and appears at the point of contact. The agent may be air-borne, in which case any exposed skin will show symptoms. Skin covered by clothing will be untouched, often resulting in a sharp border line between affected areas and clear skin. If direct contact is involved, the hands are obviously most at risk but the forehead or other parts of the head may be also affected through contamination from the hands. Occasionally, the wearing of gloves will have protected the hands and only the head will show symptoms. Sometimes the thighs are affected, even through clothing, by rubbing with the hands during work.

Allergic dermatitis requires a period of sensitization to the active agent. This may occur over a variable period of time during which there will be no symptoms. Thereafter, symptoms will appear with each contact with the agent.

The Council of State

The Council of State has met and has decided not to refer the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 to the Supreme Court for an adjudication on its constitutionality (or otherwise).

Had the Council the good fortune to get the advice of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) they might have heard something like the following:

Consider the form of justice which has ruled over us: it is a true witness to the imbecility of Man, so full it is of contradiction and error. Wherever we find favouritism or undue severity in our justice – and we can find so much that I doubt whether the Mean between them is to be found as frequently – they constitute diseased organs and corrupt members of the very body and essence of Justice. Some peasants have just rushed in to tell me that they have, at this very moment, left behind in a wood of mine a man with dozens of stab-wounds; he was still breathing and begged them of their mercy for some water and for help to lift him up. They say that they ran away fearing that they might be caught by an officer of the law and (as does happen to those who are found near a man who has been killed) required to explain this incident; that would have ruined them, since they had neither the skill nor the money to prove their innocence. What ought I to have said to them? It is certain that such an act of humanity would have put them in difficulties.

(Taken from On experience The Essays: A selection; Michel de Montaigne (trans. M. A. Screech) (Penguin Classics)

Medical Negligence – Defence

The Medical Defence Union (“MDUâ€?) is very old. Founded in 1885, it currently defends its members in litigation, usually against claims based in negligence. However, it is not limited to defending only such claims and defends the interests of its members. Very early on in its history this extended to funding the defence of an officer in a libel action.

See the earlier posting on the MDU HERE and HERE.

Given the narrow range of bodies from which medical practitioners get “insuranceâ€? it is no surprise that the MDU turned out to be the “insurerâ€? of Dr. Michael Neary.

In the light of its previous actions here in Ireland and elsewhere it is no surprise that it has declined to contribute to the compensation of Dr. Michael Neary’s injured patients.

This may not be a matter of concern to the MDU members, but it surely must be a matter of great concern to patients and their public representatives.

Incidentally, it appears that the membership of the MDU do not actually choose the directors.

First, count them

There was a peculiar juxtaposition of material on page 13 of the Irish Times of 3rd May 2007.

In one corner, the Standards in Public Office Commission advised that individuals or groups
who receive a donation in excess of €126.97, intending to campaign in the Dail general election are required to register as a “third partyâ€? with the Commission. The Commisison advised that to fail to do so was an offence. The commission emphasised that candidates and/or registered political parties were not covered by the advice.

What the Commission elided in its advertisement was the oddity of a person “campaigningâ€? as the Commission put it, in the general election, who, by definition is or was not, a candidate. The answer lies in the definition of “political purposesâ€? applied by the Commission to “campaigningâ€?. (more…)

1 … 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 … 95