222 / 262
Conditions of standing are also imposed and many
will not be able to satisfy some or all of the new
requirements. To cap the new requirements, the activi-
ties of
conseils juridiques
are
now restricted to advising
and the drafting of documents.
Whether their lucrative
interventions with government agencies will also come
to an end and whether the restrictions will be strictly
observed, is to be hoped for but remains to be seen.
Many will give up; it is expected that not more than
1,500 to 2,500 will be admitted to the Roll.
The aims of the reform
What were the objects of the reform? The fusion of
the various branches of the profession is first and fore-
most a rationalisation. The unification of the two main
branches of practitioners should benefit those who
resort to law in two respects: by simplification, obviat-
ing the necessity for clients to deal with two types of
lawyers, members of two separate professions. This it is
hoped that procedure will be speeded up and lead to a
saving in the costs. It should also remove the disad-
vantages of diffused responsibility arising from the
sharing of roles in litigation between avoué and avocat.
The reform is also an approach towards the systems in
certain other Continental states, such as Germany,
Holland and Italy, where the profession, for all prac-
tical purposes, is fused.
The French reform may be of interest to the English
legal professions, in helping to crystallise ideas, tending
towards the same end and demonstrating at least one
possible solution. Some figures in this field might be of
interest: the number of avocats, before the reform, was
about 7,500 in the whole of France; one half of them
were members of the Paris Bar. At the same time,
1,500 avoues practised in the country, out of them 150
in Paris. The number of notaries in the whole of France
is just over 6,000.
PRACTICE NOTE - Extension of time
for compensation under Planning Act
An application of great interest was recently brought
before the Dublin Circuit Court. It was stated by
Counsel to be the first of its kind to be brought in the
Circuit Court, certainly in the Dublin Circuit area.
The application was brought under Section 57 (6) of
the Local Government (Planning and Development)
Act, 1963, for an extension of time to bring a claim for
compensation under Part VI of the same Act. Frascati
Estates Limited of 28 Lower Leeson Street) Dublin,
made a claim for compensation under Section 55 of the
Act against the Corporation of Dun Laoghaire arising
out of the refusal of an application for planning per-
mission by the Corporation as Planning Authority, in
relation to the lands and premises known as Frascati,
Rock Road, Blackrock, comprising in all 6.16 acres.
The Corporation refused planning permission on the
19th May 1972.
The Developers appealed against that decision and
an oral hearing of the Appeal was held in October
1972. Before the Minister gave his decision Frascati
Estates Limited withdrew their Appeal to the Minister
for Local Government and on the 12th December 1972
lodged a claim with the Corporation for compensation
amounting to £1,309,972.00. The Corporation rejected
their claim on the basis that it had not been brought
within the six months statutory period as set out in sub-
section (6) (a) of Section 55 of the Act which provides
that a claim for compensation shall be made within six
months after the notification of a planning decision
by the Planning Authority or the Minister, as the case
may be. The Corporation contended that the six months
time period ran from the 19th May and, therefore,
Frascati Estates Ltd. were late in bringing their claim.
By Notice of Motion dated the 24th January 1973
Frascati Estates Limited applied to the Circuit Court
for an extension of time and the application was
brought in accordance with the Circuit Rules (No. 1)
1970 (S.I. No. 149 of 1970) made by the Minister for
Justice on the 24th June 1970. The procedure under
these rules differs somewhat from the procedure dealing
with Applications, Notices of Motion, etc., in the
Circuit Court.
Order 60, Rule (5) provides that an Application to
the Circuit Court for extension of time (which shall be
called an Action) shall be commenced by the issue of a
Notice of Motion in form No. 2 to the Schedule to the
Order and the Applicants shall be called Plaintiffs. The
same rule provides that the Planning Authority shall be
called the Respondent. The rules differ from other rules
in so far as that instead of the Notice of Motion being
grounded by an Affidavit, Form 2 sets out the grounds
for bringing the application.
Rule 13 of Order 60 provides that if a Respondent
wishes to dispute wholly or partly the Plaintiff's claim
he must serve a Defence in accordance with Form 3
on the Plaintiff within ten days after the service of the
Notice of Motion. This document replaces the more
usual replying Affidavit.
Another departure from the ordinary rules is con-
tained in rule 14 which provides for the hearing of oral
evidence and it is unusual for oral evidence to be given
in the hearing of a Notice of Motion except by special
leave of the Court.
The procedure to be adopted is, as mentioned above,
unusual and the term "Plaintiff', "Action" and
"Defence" would seem to confuse a Notice of Motion
with an ordinary Circuit Court Action. The time limits
set out in the Rules must be closely followed.
Although the application is termed an action, there is
no need or provision for the service of a Notice of Trial.
The original application (Form 2) sets the matter down
for hearing and the Defence, if any, must be served
within ten days after the service of the application and
filed within seven days of such service—rule 13.
The position is further confused by an almost iden-
tical procedure under the same rules to deal with
enforcement of awards made by the County Registrar
under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act,
1967.
For the purpose of the record, the application which
came before Judge Wellwood on 5th March 1973 was
granted. The learned Circuit Judge did not give written
judgment. He said he had a discretion which allowed
in favour of the Plaintiff, but awarded costs to the
Corporation (see Rule 15).
219