The Gazette 1981

95 / 298

I INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND 4 GAZETTE 1
Vol. 75, No. 5
In this issue . . .
Comment 95
District Court Licensing
Applications 115
High Court Order Restoring
Solicitor to Roll 121
Irish Association of Lawyers for the
Defence of the Unborn 121
June 1981 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^
Comment . . .
THIS issue coincides with the Society's first Seminar on
(and trade show of) computers for Solicitors. There is
considerable interest in the profession in computer-based
developments in office technology. Interest, but caution —
for, in many cases, there is a wide gap between the com-
prehension of the practitioner and the persuasiveness of the
sales man and the glossiness of the brochures, to say
nothing of the flood of technical or pseudo-technical
jargon.
In an effort to bridge that gap the Society has arranged
for a panel of distinguished visiting speakers, including
Irish Practitioners who are already users of the new
technology, to speak at the Seminar. The trade show will
enable participants to see, in the one place, the majority of
the products available on the Irish Market. In addition, this
issue contains some special articles which are intended to
assist members in evaluating the new technology and its
application to their own practices.
* * *
T' HE recent decision of Osier, J. of the Ontario HiRh
Court of Justice in Re British United Automobiles and
Volvo Canada Ltd. (1981) 114 DLR (3d) 488 should
interest practitioners here. The parties had entered
into an agreement of purchase and sale respecting
certain premises. A schedule was attached to the
agreement and included a declaration that the purchaser
was aware of a prior agreement, made between a pre-
decessor in title and representatives of a Residents'
Association, respecting the use to which the premises
would be put. The main question for the Court was
whether the prior agreement amounted to a restrictive
covenant running with the land and, if so, whether it was
to be treated as fraudulent and void by reason of certain
statutory provisions. However, Osier, J. also had to deal
Yvith the question of actual notice by the purchaser. The
purchaser's solicitor was in partnership with other
solicitors and one of the partners had actual knowledge of
the agreement. Osier, J. accepted Counsel's submission
that the solicitor/client privilege was a bar to any finding
that knowledge acquired by a solicitor when acting for a
client could be attributed to a second and unrelated client,
holding that knowledge acquired by one legal partner
could not be attributed to another and hence to the client
of that other. Indeed support for this submission can be
found in the judgment of Lord Hardwicke LC in Worsley
v. Earl of Scarborough (1746) 3 Atk. 392 where it was
said that "Notice to an agent or counsel who was
employed on the thing by another person, or on another
business, and at another time, is no notice to his client,
who employes him afterwards; and it would be very
mischievous if it was so, for the man of most practice and
greatest eminence would then be the most dangerous to
employ." •
95