The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

N EWS

MARCH 1996

Bloomer - The Supreme Court Decides

Alison Bloomer & Others v Law

Society of Ireland, Ireland and the

Attorney General -

No. 329/95 The

Sup r eme Cou r t.

The following a re extracts f r om the

ex-tempore

j u d gme nt of the

Sup r eme Cou rt delivered on 6

Fe b r u a r y, 1996, by Hamilton, CJ.

This is an appeal brought by the

plaintiffs/appellants against the

judgment and order made in the High

Court by Miss Justice Laffoy in

proceedings in which the plaintiffs

had claimed a number of declarations

and had claimed damages for

alleged breach of duty, conspiracy

and

mala fides

and so on in respect

of the officers and members of

the Society.

The learned trial judge decided,

having considered the matter at length

and having had regard to all the

evidence, that there was indirect

discrimination against the plaintiffs by

virtue of the provisions of this

regulation and that she held it to be

invalid. There is no appeal by any

party against her findings in this

regard and it is true to say that the

judgment having been delivered, the

terms of the judgment were accepted

by the Law Society, the various

officers thereof and the Education

Committee who proceeded to deal

with the matter in accordance with the

terms of the judgment given by the

learned trial judge. It appears that

each of the plaintiffs were by letter

dated 31 October, 1995, informed of

the attitude of the Law Society and it

was clearly indicated to them that they

were eligible to make an application

to the Law Society on the same basis

as the graduates of the universities in

this State.

It is quite clear from that attitude that

everything that the plaintiffs had

The Hon. Mr. Liam Hamilton, Chief justice

sought was granted to them in the first

instance by the finding of the learned

trial judge that the provisions of

Regulation 15 were invalid having

regard to European law, the

acceptance of the Law Society of that

finding and their proceedings to take

steps to ensure that there was no

discrimination against the plaintiffs

in respect of any applications

they might make to the Law Society

for exemption in accordance with

the now invalid and stricken

Regulation 15.

It is unfortunate that, as I said, this

attitude developed in respect of the

serious issue, this issue which was of

considerable importance to the

plaintiffs and indeed many students

in a similar position and that the

case had not been dealt with in a

calmer, more relaxed atmosphere

without unfounded allegations being

made against the integrity and

honour of members of the Law

Society who are faced with a very

difficult task, faced with the

situation of demands for admission to

places, faced with problems of

increased numbers in the legal

profession and seeking admission to

it. All of these are matters of

legitimate concern and regard being

had thereto is not in any way and

could not be in any way construed as

malicious or invidious or in any way

in bad faith. I would certainly like to

make it clear and I am sure I am

speaking on behalf of the members of

the Court that the Court accepts the

bona fides

of the Law Society in

this matter.

When we come to the hearing of the

appeal, apart from the suggestion

made by Dr. White with regard to the

form of declaration that it would be

open to us to make, having regard to

the findings of the learned High Court

judge, the basic issue of this appeal

can be identified as the question

of costs.

Now with regard to the costs of the Law

Society which were awarded against the

plaintiffs and the failure to award costs

to the plaintiffs, the court has

approached this matter in what it hopes

and believes is a pragmatic manner and

is satisfied that the plaintiffs are entitled

to an order for the costs of the

proceedings in the High Court limited to

the costs attributable to the issue of

determining the validity of Regulation

15 of the Society's regulations and

doing the best it can and allowing for

certain flexibility on either side, the

court fixes that as reasonable period of

eight days.

With regard to the costs of the appeal,

numerous issues were raised in the

notice of appeal, numerous issues were

referred to in the submissions made by

the legal representatives of the plaintiffs

but the fundamental issue was the

question of costs. In these

circumstances, the court considers it

reasonable to award to the plaintiffs/

appellants half the costs of the appeal

before this court but will disallow any or