The Gazette 1981

I INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND 4 GAZETTE 1 Vol. 75, No. 5 In this issue . . . Comment 95 The Word Processor in Practice 97 Legal Information Retrieval 101 The Software Dilemma —A Solution Ahead? 101 In What Areas Can a Computer Help? 102 A Glossary of Computer Terms 102 Occupiers' Rights: A New Hazard for Irish Conveyancers? 103 The Law School: The End of the Beginning 111 Education Timetable 1981 I l l The Intestate Testator? 113 District Court Licensing Applications 115 For Your Diary 115 Family Home Protection Act 115 Minutes of Half-Yearly General Meeting 117 High Court Order Restoring Solicitor to Roll 121 Tipperary Bar Association 121 Irish Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn 121 Professional Information 122 June 1981

^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ Comment . . . T HIS issue coincides with the Society's first Seminar on (and trade show of) computers for Solicitors. There is considerable interest in the profession in computer-based developments in office technology. Interest, but caution — for, in many cases, there is a wide gap between the com- prehension of the practitioner and the persuasiveness of the sales man and the glossiness of the brochures, to say nothing of the flood of technical or pseudo-technical jargon. In an effort to bridge that gap the Society has arranged for a panel of distinguished visiting speakers, including Irish Practitioners who are already users of the new technology, to speak at the Seminar. The trade show will enable participants to see, in the one place, the majority of the products available on the Irish Market. In addition, this issue contains some special articles which are intended to assist members in evaluating the new technology and its application to their own practices. * * * T ' HE recent decision of Osier, J. of the Ontario HiRh Court of Justice in Re British United Automobiles and Volvo Canada Ltd. (1981) 114 DLR (3d) 488 should interest practitioners here. The parties had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale respecting certain premises. A schedule was attached to the agreement and included a declaration that the purchaser was aware of a prior agreement, made between a pre- decessor in title and representatives of a Residents' Association, respecting the use to which the premises would be put. The main question for the Court was whether the prior agreement amounted to a restrictive covenant running with the land and, if so, whether it was to be treated as fraudulent and void by reason of certain statutory provisions. However, Osier, J. also had to deal Yvith the question of actual notice by the purchaser. The purchaser's solicitor was in partnership with other solicitors and one of the partners had actual knowledge of the agreement. Osier, J. accepted Counsel's submission that the solicitor/client privilege was a bar to any finding that knowledge acquired by a solicitor when acting for a client could be attributed to a second and unrelated client, holding that knowledge acquired by one legal partner could not be attributed to another and hence to the client of that other. Indeed support for this submission can be found in the judgment of Lord Hardwicke LC in Worsley v. Earl of Scarborough (1746) 3 Atk. 392 where it was said that "Notice to an agent or counsel who was employed on the thing by another person, or on another business, and at another time, is no notice to his client, who employes him afterwards; and it would be very mischievous if it was so, for the man of most practice and greatest eminence would then be the most dangerous to employ." • 95