The Gazette 1972

Farming is to come under this rule eventually and

many people fear that if the Land Commission is not

changed within the next year to consolidate the pool of

land that will become available as old farmers without

heirs pass on, for the national restructuring programme,

foreigners may be able to take advantage of the situation.

At the moment most of the EEC countries have bet-

ter defences against undesirable land purchases than the

Land Commission has.

In Germany, for example, the local agricultural coun-

cil must approve all purchases whether by foreigners or

not to make sure that all land will be put to the best

use and since it is being predicted that each member

State of the EEC will be responsible for implementing

its own rural structural reform programme, Ireland, if

she joins, will have little difficulty in preventing the

purchase of farmland to speculators if the same proce-

dure is followed.

The ten-year residential period being proposed by the

County Committees is far in excess of present EEC

legislation, which enables foreign farmers to buy land if

the land has been totally unused for two years or if the

purchaser has worked as a farm hand or tenant for two

years in the country where he intends to farm.

At the moment, nobody, not even the Land Commis-

sion, knows how much of our 16 million acres of land

is in the hands of non-nationals, although the Commis-

sion is satisfied that ' the figure is nothing like one

million acres.

The reasons why no precise statistics are available

date back to the early days of the State when foreigners

were invited over to establish industries here and no

records were kept of the transactions.

Since the passing of the 1965 Land Act, however,

when control over the purchase of land by non-qualified

persons was vested in the Land Commission, more than

19,000 acres have been sold to non-nationals. The

amounts of land have ranged between 6 and 1,587

acres and the nationalities involved are British, Ameri-

can, German, Canadian, Australian, Swedish, Dutch,

South African, French, Finnish, Swiss, Austrian and

Belgian.

Representations have also been made to the Minister

for Lands by the Irish Law Society to have all lands

acquired by the Commission in future paid for in cash

instead of Land Bonds as at present.

In re. a Solicitor

Is a solicitor employed as "agent" to do conveyancing,

the employer advertising "cut rates", holding him-

self out, and seeking instructions?

QBD, Ashworth, James and Bristow J J ; 13th March

1972; Appeal from Dssciplinary Committee of the Law

Society.

A solicitor, practised on his own account until 30th

September 1970. In October 1970 he informed the

secretary of the Professional Purposes Committee of the

Law Society that he was now an agent for the National

House Owners' Society. An inquiry agent for the Law

Society interviewed him when he said that he acted as

solicitor for the internal affairs of the NHOS and as

agent for NHOS when its members were referred to

him with their conveyancing work. He was called before

the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society to

answer charges of professional misconduct a n d / or unbe-

fitting conduct in that he had (a) in breach of Rule 1

of the Solicitors' Practice Rules 1936 sought instructions

for professional business; and (b) in breach of Rule 2

held himself out as prepared to do professional business

in non-contentious matters at less than the fixed scale

fees. The Law Society submitted that the advertisements

by which NHOS advertised their conveyancing services

to members at rates less than those charged by solicitors,

were an indirect instruction seeking by the solicitor for

professional business, that by doing conveyancing for

NHOS members at "cut rates" he held himself out,

although not by name, as being ready to do profes-

sional business at "cut rates". Pre-contract enquiries

which he conducted for NHOS members were signed

by him as "proposed purchaser's solicitor", a draft

agreement provided that the sale be completed "at the

office of the vendors' solicitor" naming himself as that

solicitor. The committee decided that the allegations

were substantiated and fined him £750. He appealed,

contending that his position was no different from that

of a salaried solicitor employed by an insurance company-

Ashworth J said it was argued for the solicitor that

there had been no holding out by him, for he was

simply a paid agent, that in so far as there had been

holding out by advertisements and brochures, it was

done by the NHOS. The judgment of Lord Goddard

CJ in re

A Solicitor

[1951] 2 All ER 108, 111, applied

in the present case. The solicitor enlisted in the NHO^

aware of its objects and allowed his services to be used

for "cut rates". Throughout he held a practising certi*

ficate, and he carried out the conveyancing work. H

ws holding himself out to the NHOS and through the

NHOS to its members, and had no answer to the charg

of a breach of Rule 2. As for Rule 1, counsel for the

Law Society said that on the facts, albeit not directly,

the solicitor was seeking instructions because those h

called his principals were seeking professional business

which he carried out and therefore he was seeking

professional work. His Lordship would dismiss th

appeal.

James J, agreeing that the appeal should fail, said

that there was no warrant for reading into either rul

the qualification "being a practising solicitor".

Bristow J agreed. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors Journal

(24th March 1972)

124