The Gazette 1981

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE Vol. 75, No. 3

April 1981

Comment . . .

In this issue • . . Comment 51 The Right of Workers to Choose their Collective Bargaining Agents 53 Conveyancing Note: Family Home Protection Act 56 EEC: What Constitutes Unfair Competition? 57 Central Criminal Court Listings 59 Income Tax: Duty of Solicitors to account for interest paid to clients 59 Certificates of Valuation 59 German Public Companies: The Rights of Shareholders 61 Law Searchers' Professional Indemnity Insurance 63 Solicitors' Benevolent Association 63 Book Reviews 64 What's New? 66 Bar Association News 68 Young Citizen Supplement 69 For Your Diary 69 Professional Information 70 Executive Editor: Mary Buckley Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman John F. Buckley William Earley Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney Advertising: Liam Ó hOisin, Telephone 305236 The views expressed in this publication, save where other- wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

THE STARDUST TRIBUNAL The Stardust holocaust was unarguably so tragic that dispute over the manner of legal representation of the unfortunate victims can only appear to be in the worst possible taste. The Law Society believes that each victim, or their next of kin, should be entitled to the widest possible choice of legal advice in pursuing any legal claim that might arise out of the disaster. It could not condone any proposals which, however well intentioned, might be seen to limit such choice. The Society is confident that both branches of the legal profession would adhere to their long established traditions of providing legal services, regardless of the financial strength or weakness of the client. However, so far as representation at the Tribunal of Enquiry is concerned it is clear that there could be no need for each interested party to have separate legal representation. The purpose of the enquiry is primarily to ascertain the cause of the disaster and while the transcript of evidence at the Tribunal and the eventual report may well provide information on which civil claims for damages might be founded, it is clearly not necessary that legions of lawyers should participate merely to ensure that the Tribunals' enquiry is comprehensive. In the aftermath of the Whiddy Tribunal, where criticism has been offered of the large fees earned by leading Counsel (though whether such fees will have seemed large to their multi-national clients must be doubtful) and of the total legal costs involved, it was not unreasonable for the Government to take the view, when establishing the Stardust Tribunal (where unlike the Whiddy Tribunal it was not likely that there would be a preponderance of parties of very substantial financial strength) that efforts should be made to avoid the State being faced with a huge bill for legal fees. In view of the possibility that each victim, or their next of kin, might seek separate representation at the Tribunal and that the State would be asked to pay the bill, some arrangement whereby this might be avoided was clearly sensible. Unfortunately, the method chosen was not the wisest. It smacked too much of paternalism, led to allegations of political favouritism (which, it must be stressed, appear totally unfounded) and led to confrontation with the bereaved. It would have been more appropriate if, instead of offering to the bereaved and injured the services of the Coolock Law Centre and of one firm of solicitors, however competent, the Government had simply indicated it would pay the legal costs of say, two or three O Continued on page 56

51