160 / 482
GAZETTE
APRIL 1989
The Hi gh Court
Judicial Review No. 199 / 1987
between
Frank MacGabhann, applicant
and
The Incorporated Law Society
and others, respondent
Judgment of Mr . Jus t i ce
Blayney delivered the 10th day of
February 1989.
The Applicant is a Solicitor's
Apprentice. The first named
Respondent is the Incorporated
Law Society of Ireland to which I
shall refer as the Society. The
second named Respondents are
the members of the Council of the
Society, and I shall refer to them as
the Council. The third named
Respondents are the members of
the Education Committee of the
Society and I shall refer to them as
the Committee.
The Applicant seeks a number of
reliefs by way of Judicial Review. I
will specify them at a later stage.
Essentially he is challenging the
examination system as it existed in
1986 for Apprentices seeking entry
to the Society's Law School.
The Applicant was born in New
York but all four of his grandparents
were born in Ireland. In 1970 he
obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree
from Manhattan University in
Liberal Arts. Between then and
1984 he taught in New York,
Ireland, Spain and France. In 1984
he decided to take steps to qualify
as a Solicitor. He took a course in
Irish and passed the Society's Irish
examination in July 1985. By
reason of having a University
Degree he was exempted from the
Society's preliminary examination,
and also in July 1985, having
become apprenticed, his name was
duly entered in the Society's
Register of Apprentices.
In November 1985 he sat 'or the
Society's final examination - first
part. He failed the examination but
passed in Criminal Law. In
November 1986 he sat the
examination again and, having
passed Criminal Law in the previous
year, he did not have to repeat that
subject. The five subjects for the
examination were Tort, Contract,
Property, Company Law and
Constitutional Law. By letter from
the Society dated the 30th January
1987 he was informed that he had
not been successful in the
examination, his marks having
been: Tort 50, Contract 50,
Property 50, Company Law 51 and
Constitutional Law 46.
With this letter the Society
enclosed the rules governing re-
checks of papers and the com-
pensation rules. The Applicant
sought a re-check of his results in
Constitutional Law and by letter of
the 10th March 1987 from the
Society he was informed that
following completion of the re-
check procedure there had been no
change in his position in the
examination. He was also informed
that all his scripts had been seen by
the extern examiner. Some further
correspondence followed which it
is not necessary to refer to in detail.
It terminated with a letter from the
Applicant's Solicitors to the
Society on the 27th May 1987
stating that, if the decision to
refuse admission to the Applicant
to the Law School was not
reversed, application would be
made to this Court to seek liberty
to have Judicial Review of that
decision. The Society did not alter
its decision and on the 13th July
1987 the Applicant applied for and
was granted by Johnson, J. liberty
to apply for certain reliefs by way
of Judicial Review. Some of these
reliefs the Applicant is not now
pursuing and two additional items
were added later by amendment so
that the reliefs actually sought in
the course of the hearing before me
were as follows:
1. An Order quashing the
decision of the Society to
refuse the Applicant entry to
the Society's Law School at
Blackhall Place in the current
academic year.
2. A Declaration that the com-
pensation rules applied by the
Committee and adopted by
the Society in respect of the
final examination - first part
which part took place in or
about the month of November
1986 insofar as they operate
to restrict the number of
places in the Society's Law
School below a figure of 150
for the current academic year
are unlawful, void and of no
effect.
3. A Declaration that there is no
power express or implied in the
Solicitors Act, 1954 to limit or
otherwise regulate the number
of candidates reaching a satis-
factory standard in the pre-
scribed subjects from being
admitted to the Law School of
the Society.
4. A Declaration that it is
ultra
vires
the powers conferred on
the Society to impose a
limiting quota of in or about
150 on candidates seeking
admission to the Law School.
5. Further or in the alternative if
a power to limit and regulate
numbers is to be implied in the
Solicitors Act, 1954, a
Declaration that it is
ultra vires
the powers conferred on the
Society under the Act of 1954
to impose any restriction on
numbers without having made
a regulation empowering the
Society to do so.
6. In the further alternative, if a
power or authority to restrict
numbers can be implied
(which is denied) a Declaration
that the said limitation and
restriction of 150 is unreason-
able in the circumstances.
7. A Declaration that it is
ultra
vires
the powers conferred on
the Society under Statutory
Instrument Number 66 of
1975 to hold a competitive
examination for entry into the
Law School of the Society.
8. Further or in the alternative, if
a power or authority to hold a
competitive examination can
be held to exist (which is
denied) a Declaration that the
administration of the final
examination - first part by the
Committee is unreasonable in
the circumstances.
9. A Declaration that the
146