227 / 436
GAZETTE
JULY/AUGUST 1990
the expansion of the privilege from
cases of actual or contemplated
litigation to cases of communica-
tion seeking legal advice and/or
assistance to be justified, it was
necessary that it should be closely
and proximately linked to the
conduct of litigation and the
function of administering justice in
the Courts.
A communication made between
a person and his lawyer as such for
the purpose of obtaining from such
lawyer legal advice whether at the
initiation of a client, or the lawyer,
should in general be privileged or
exempt from disclosure except
with the consent of the client.
However, communications made to
a lawyer for the purpose of
obtaining his legal assistance other
than advice were not privileged as
they could not be said to contain
any real relationship with the area
of potential litigation. There was
insufficient public interest or
feature of the common good to be
secured or protected which could
justify an exemption from dis-
closure of such communications.
Walsh J concurred with the
judgment of Finlay CJ. McCarthy J
also agreed that the appeal should
be dismissed.
Subjective standard for
references
The Court of Appeal (England and
Wales) Mustill, Ralph Gibson and
Nicholls LJJ
(The Times,
June 25,
1990) held in the case of
Wishart
-v- National Association of Citizens
Advice Bureaux Ltd.
that where an
offer of employment was made
"subject to receipt of satisfactory
written references", the question
whe t her the references were
satisfactory was likely to be one for
the prospective employer to decide
subjectively, without the applica-
tion of an objective standard.
The Court of Appeal so stated in
allowing an appeal by the de-
fendant, the National Association
of Citizens Advice Bureaux Ltd.
from Mr. Philip Cox, QC who,
sitting as a deputy High Court
Judge, on the application of the
plaintiff, Turham Wishart, on the
same day that the writ was issued
and before a statement of claim
had been served, had on May 11,
1990 made interlocutory orders:
(i) restraining the defendant
from advertising a vacancy
for the post of information
officer with responsibility for
welfare rights or appointing
any person other than the
plaintiff to such post, and
( i i ) requiring the defendant
forthwith to provide the
plaintiff with employment in
that capacity.
The order was stayed pending
the defendant's appeal.
Mus t i ll LJ stated t hat the
plaintiff, who had worked in
Citizens Advice Bureaux since
1986, applied for the post ad-
vertised by the National Associa-
tion. The job, which would involve
providing central expertise on
welfare rights, was likely to be a
demanding one wh i ch wou ld
require regular attendance.
In due course the plaintiff was
offered employment "subject to
receipt of satisfactory written
references".
The defendant took up the
references supplied by the plaintiff.
Following what was said in one of
the references, the defendant be-
came conce r ned at wh at it
regarded as a poor record of
Presentation to Master David Bell, Taxing Master, on the occasion of his retirement, January, 1990.
(left to right) Ernest Margetson, President of the Law Society, Master David Bell, Taxing Master, The Hon.
Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, President of the High Court, Master Toirleach de Valera, Taxing Master, and Michael
Neary, County Registrar (Dublin).