The Gazette 1990

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGUST 1990

the expansion of the privilege from cases of actual or contemplated litigation to cases of communica- tion seeking legal advice and/or assistance to be justified, it was necessary that it should be closely and proximately linked to the conduct of litigation and the function of administering justice in the Courts. A communication made between a person and his lawyer as such for the purpose of obtaining from such lawyer legal advice whether at the initiation of a client, or the lawyer, should in general be privileged or exempt from disclosure except with the consent of the client. However, communications made to a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining his legal assistance other than advice were not privileged as they could not be said to contain any real relationship with the area of potential litigation. There was insufficient public interest or feature of the common good to be secured or protected which could justify an exemption from dis- closure of such communications. Walsh J concurred with the judgment of Finlay CJ. McCarthy J

also agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.

from advertising a vacancy for the post of information officer with responsibility for welfare rights or appointing any person other than the plaintiff to such post, and ( i i ) requiring the defendant forthwith to provide the plaintiff with employment in that capacity. The order was stayed pending the defendant's appeal. Mus t i ll LJ stated t hat the plaintiff, who had worked in Citizens Advice Bureaux since 1986, applied for the post ad- vertised by the National Associa- tion. The job, which would involve providing central expertise on welfare rights, was likely to be a demanding one wh i ch wou ld require regular attendance. In due course the plaintiff was offered employment "subject to receipt of satisfactory written references". The defendant took up the references supplied by the plaintiff. Following what was said in one of the references, the defendant be- came conce r ned at wh at it regarded as a poor record of

Subjective standard for references

The Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Mustill, Ralph Gibson and Nicholls LJJ (The Times, June 25, 1990) held in the case of Wishart -v- National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux Ltd. that where an offer of employment was made "subject to receipt of satisfactory written references", the question whe t her the references were satisfactory was likely to be one for the prospective employer to decide subjectively, without the applica- tion of an objective standard. The Court of Appeal so stated in allowing an appeal by the de- fendant, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux Ltd. from Mr. Philip Cox, QC who, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, on the application of the plaintiff, Turham Wishart, on the same day that the writ was issued and before a statement of claim had been served, had on May 11, 1990 made interlocutory orders: (i) restraining the defendant

Presentation to Master David Bell, Taxing Master, on the occasion of his retirement, January, 1990. (left to right) Ernest Margetson, President of the Law Society, Master David Bell, Taxing Master, The Hon. Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, President of the High Court, Master Toirleach de Valera, Taxing Master, and Michael Neary, County Registrar (Dublin).