The Gazette 1981

51 / 298

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
GAZETTE
Vol. 75, No. 3
In this issue • . .
Comment 51
Conveyancing Note: Family Home
Protection Act 56
EEC: What Constitutes Unfair Competition?
57
German Public Companies: The Rights of
Shareholders 61
Law Searchers' Professional Indemnity
Insurance 63
Solicitors' Benevolent Association 63
Executive Editor: Mary Buckley
Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman
John F. Buckley
William Earley
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Advertising: Liam Ó hOisin, Telephone 305236
The views expressed in this publication, save where other-
wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and
not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
April 1981
Comment . . .
THE STARDUST TRIBUNAL
The Stardust holocaust was unarguably so tragic that
dispute over the manner of legal representation of the
unfortunate victims can only appear to be in the worst
possible taste.
The Law Society believes that each victim, or their next
of kin, should be entitled to the widest possible choice of
legal advice in pursuing any legal claim that might arise
out of the disaster. It could not condone any proposals
which, however well intentioned, might be seen to limit
such choice. The Society is confident that both branches
of the legal profession would adhere to their long
established traditions of providing legal services,
regardless of the financial strength or weakness of the
client.
However, so far as representation at the Tribunal of
Enquiry is concerned it is clear that there could be no
need for each interested party to have separate legal
representation. The purpose of the enquiry is primarily to
ascertain the cause of the disaster and while the transcript
of evidence at the Tribunal and the eventual report may
well provide information on which civil claims for
damages might be founded, it is clearly not necessary that
legions of lawyers should participate merely to ensure that
the Tribunals' enquiry is comprehensive.
In the aftermath of the Whiddy Tribunal, where
criticism has been offered of the large fees earned by
leading Counsel (though whether such fees will have
seemed large to their multi-national clients must be
doubtful) and of the total legal costs involved, it was not
unreasonable for the Government to take the view, when
establishing the Stardust Tribunal (where unlike the
Whiddy Tribunal it was not likely that there would be a
preponderance of parties of very substantial financial
strength) that efforts should be made to avoid the State
being faced with a huge bill for legal fees. In view of the
possibility that each victim, or their next of kin, might
seek separate representation at the Tribunal and that the
State would be asked to pay the bill, some arrangement
whereby this might be avoided was clearly sensible.
Unfortunately, the method chosen was not the wisest. It
smacked too much of paternalism, led to allegations of
political favouritism (which, it must be stressed, appear
totally unfounded) and led to confrontation with the
bereaved. It would have been more appropriate if, instead
of offering to the bereaved and injured the services of the
Coolock Law Centre and of one firm of solicitors,
however competent, the Government had simply
indicated it would pay the legal costs of say, two or three
O Continued on page 56
51