The Gazette 1989

GAZETTE

APRIL 1989

Blackhall Place in the current academic year. 2. A Declaration that the com- pensation rules applied by the Committee and adopted by the Society in respect of the final examination - first part which part took place in or about the month of November 1986 insofar as they operate to restrict the number of places in the Society's Law School below a figure of 150 for the current academic year are unlawful, void and of no effect. 3. A Declaration that there is no power express or implied in the Solicitors Act, 1954 to limit or otherwise regulate the number of candidates reaching a satis- factory standard in the pre- scribed subjects from being admitted to the Law School of the Society. 4. A Declaration that it is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Society to impose a limiting quota of in or about 150 on candidates seeking admission to the Law School. 5. Further or in the alternative if a power to limit and regulate numbers is to be implied in the Solicitors Act, 1954, a Declaration that it is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Society under the Act of 1954 to impose any restriction on numbers without having made a regulation empowering the Society to do so. 6. In the further alternative, if a power or authority to restrict numbers can be implied (which is denied) a Declaration that the said limitation and restriction of 150 is unreason- able in the circumstances. 7. A Declaration that it is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Society under Statutory Instrument Number 66 of 1975 to hold a competitive examination for entry into the Law School of the Society. 8. Further or in the alternative, if a power or authority to hold a competitive examination can be held to exist (which is denied) a Declaration that the administration of the final examination - first part by the Committee is unreasonable in the circumstances. 9. A Declaration that the

The Hi gh Court Judicial Review No. 199 / 1987 between Frank MacGabhann, applicant and The Incorporated Law Society and others, respondent

Judgment of Mr . Jus t i ce Blayney delivered the 10th day of February 1989. The Applicant is a Solicitor's Apprentice. The first named Respondent is the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland to which I shall refer as the Society. The second named Respondents are the members of the Council of the Society, and I shall refer to them as the Council. The third named Respondents are the members of the Education Committee of the Society and I shall refer to them as the Committee. The Applicant seeks a number of reliefs by way of Judicial Review. I will specify them at a later stage. Essentially he is challenging the examination system as it existed in 1986 for Apprentices seeking entry to the Society's Law School. The Applicant was born in New York but all four of his grandparents were born in Ireland. In 1970 he obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Manhattan University in Liberal Arts. Between then and 1984 he taught in New York, Ireland, Spain and France. In 1984 he decided to take steps to qualify as a Solicitor. He took a course in Irish and passed the Society's Irish examination in July 1985. By reason of having a University Degree he was exempted from the Society's preliminary examination, and also in July 1985, having become apprenticed, his name was duly entered in the Society's Register of Apprentices. In November 1985 he sat 'or the Society's final examination - first part. He failed the examination but passed in Criminal Law. In November 1986 he sat the examination again and, having passed Criminal Law in the previous year, he did not have to repeat that subject. The five subjects for the

examination were Tort, Contract, Property, Company Law and Constitutional Law. By letter from the Society dated the 30th January 1987 he was informed that he had not been successful in the examination, his marks having been: Tort 50, Contract 50, Property 50, Company Law 51 and Constitutional Law 46. With this letter the Society enclosed the rules governing re- checks of papers and the com- pensation rules. The Applicant sought a re-check of his results in Constitutional Law and by letter of the 10th March 1987 from the Society he was informed that following completion of the re- check procedure there had been no change in his position in the examination. He was also informed that all his scripts had been seen by the extern examiner. Some further correspondence followed which it is not necessary to refer to in detail. It terminated with a letter from the Applicant's Solicitors to the Society on the 27th May 1987 stating that, if the decision to refuse admission to the Applicant to the Law School was not reversed, application would be made to this Court to seek liberty to have Judicial Review of that decision. The Society did not alter its decision and on the 13th July 1987 the Applicant applied for and was granted by Johnson, J. liberty to apply for certain reliefs by way of Judicial Review. Some of these reliefs the Applicant is not now pursuing and two additional items were added later by amendment so that the reliefs actually sought in the course of the hearing before me were as follows: 1. An Order quashing the decision of the Society to refuse the Applicant entry to the Society's Law School at

146