The Gazette 1990

228 / 436

GAZETTE JULY/AUGUST 1990
attendance by the plaintiff in his
previous emp l oymen t, wh i ch
appeared to be connected with ill
health. After further enquiries and
discussions within the national
association, the defendant on April
5, 1990 withdrew the offer of
employment.
The first issue was whether an
unconditional contract of employ-
ment had been concluded. The
defendant contended that there
was no concluded contract.
In response, the plaintiff said,
inter alia, that it was not enough
that the defendant found the refer-
ences unsatisfactory. The test was
an objective one, and the facts
must have been such that a
reasonable employer would have
regarded the references as not
satisfactory.
Mustill LJ said that there was no
direct authority on that point, and
it could be argued that cases such
as Diggle -v- Ogston Motor Co.
(1915) 84 LJ KB 2165 and Astra
Trust Ltd. -v- Adams and Another
[1969] 1 Lloyd's Rep 81, which
dealt with "satisfactory" in other
contexts, were distinguishable.
However, Mustill LJ's strong
inclination, without finally deciding
the matter one way or the other,
was that "satisfactory" should be
given a subjective meaning in the
present context.
Mustill LJ considered that there
was, however, no doubt that the
Judge of first instance misdirected
himself in regard to the second
issue, which was whether the
judge should have made the
interlocutory order that he did.
Counsel for the plaintiff relied on
Powell -v- Brent London Borough
Council [1988] ICR 176. In that
case, because of the special facts
and, as the court specifically said,
by way of exception to the general
principle that specific performance
of contracts of service would not
normally be ordered, the Court of
Appeal granted an interlocutory
injunction restraining the council
from re-advertising the post in
which the plaintiff was already
working.
The question was not whether it
would be reasonable for the
defendant to employ the plaintiff,
but whether it should be forced
against its will to employ him.
Mustill LJ stated that the present
case was far different from Powell
because, inter alia, there was no
pes
• UMM
PETROCARGO MARWE SURVEYORS LTD.
Marine Consultancy;
Independent Marine Surveyors;
Marine Expert Witness;
Ship to Ship Transfer;
Vessel & Terminal Safety Inspection;
Recruitment; Procedures Manuals.
Cooleen House, Rushbrooke,
Cobh, Co. Cork.
Tel: 021-811677 Fax: 021-813009
Capt. Thomas C. Nash M. INST. PET.
established employment relation-
ship in which there was trust and
confidence and which all parties
were happy to continue. Instead,
there was a stillborn relationship to
which one party objected.
The Court of Appeal considered
that the plaintiff would therefore be
most unlikely to obtain a final
injunction at trial. For that reason,
in addition to the questionable
nature of the plaintiff's position on
the first issue, the appeal should be
allowed and the judge's order dis-
charged.
Ralph Gibson and Nicholls
delivered concurring judgments.
Criminal Proceedings Evidence
Mr. J Bruton, T.D. asked the
Minister for Justice in the Dail on
April 25, 1990, 397 Dail Debates,
col. 2167, if the Minister intended
to introduce legislation to imple-
ment the recommendations of the
Law Reform Commission in regard
to the admission of business
records in evidence in criminal
trials.
The Minister for Justice, Mr. Ray
Burke, stated that as already
announced, proposals for a criminal
evidence Bill were at an advanced
state of preparation. The proposals
provide for the admission of
business records in criminal
proceedings. He expected to
circulate the Bill later in the year.
Commun i ty Law Centres
Mr. R. Bruton, T.D. and Mr. P.
McCartan, T.D. raised the issue of
Coolock Community Law Centre
and the evolution of community
law centres along the lines of the
Coolock Centre. Mr. R. Burke,
Minister for Justice at 397 Dail
Debates, cols. 2150-51, April 25,
1990, stated that the Coolock
Community Law Centre operated
outside the State scheme of civil
legal aid and advice and on a
different basis. The Minister stated
that he was not in a position to
assist in the funding of the centre
because the monies that were
voted by the Oireachtas for the
provision of civil legal aid services
were for the purposes of the State
scheme exclusively. Furthermore, at
a time of scarce financial
resources, it was incumbent on him
to channel whatever public funds
were available to him to the State
scheme. The Minister stated that
the f u t u re improvement and
development of our civil legal aid
service would be based on the
phased expansion of the State
scheme, i.e. mainly through an
increase in the number of law
centres operated by and under the
control of the Legal Aid Board. The
Minister was satisfied that this was
the proper way to proceed but, of
course, progress would depend on
financial circumstances.
Family Mediation Service
Mr. S. Barrett, T.D. asked the
Minister for Justice in the Dail on
April 25, 1990, 397 Dail Debates,
cols. 2179-80, if he would make a
decision regarding the future
structure and operation of the
family mediation service, arising
out of the report which he received
from the committee in September
1989 containing recommendations
for setting up such a permanent
structure.
The Minister for Justice, Mr. Ray
Burke, stated that the State family
mediation service was set up in
July 1986 as a three-year pilot
scheme and the steering com-
mittee of the service had submitted
their report to him on the effective-
ness of that pilot scheme. In the
light of experience and the
knowl edge gained f r om the
operation of the pilot scheme, the
Minister considered that a number
of wider issues needed to be
examined before decisions were
reached on the long-term future of
the service. To assist the Minister
in this matter the Minister proposed
to appoint a committee to examine
all the various possible options -
having regard, among other things,
to such matters as mediation
services provided privately, quality
of service, geographical distri-
bution, cost-effectiveness, etc. -
and to advise him accordingly. The
212