The Gazette 1989

GAZETTE

APRIL 1989

LEGA L AFFAIR S

EXECUTIV E

DUBLI N BASE D

Our clients, who are involved in the entertainment industry wish to recruit a

Legal Affairs Executive. The successful candidate, who will be a qualified solicitor,

will report to the Director of Finance.

The main job responsibilities will include drafting legal documents; analysis of

third party draft agreements; helping to ensure that the company obtains

maximum benefit from rights of contract in any agreements and that obligations

are honoured on a timely basis.

This is a key position with exciting prospects, which would suit an energetic, young

Solicitor.

An attractive salary (commensurate with experience) will be offered.

ESSENTIA L REQUIREMENT

(a) Applicants must be qualified solicitors with at least 2 years experience of

dealing with matters of contract law for medium sized to large organisations.

(b) Good communication skills written and verbal.

DESIR E ABL E REQUIREMENT

Some knowledge of the entertainment industry and matters relating to law

within that industry would be a decided advantage.

Applications includinga full c.v. should be made to

Sylvia Harrison quoting RefNo: H/100.

l ie

n ^ U i i i i x

n i . H i i v f l u n i

International Recruitment Consultants

Chatham House, Chatham Street, Dublin 2.

Telephone (01) 794733. Fax: 792748

aggregate to be unjust, it seems to

me it would have to be shown that

it was fixed excessively high. But

such is not the case. The figure of

250 simply requires an average

equal t o the pass mark. I a m

satisfied therefore that th e

standard was not unreasonable and

so was lawful.

The fourth issue is whether the

Applicant as a matter of fact knew

that 50% was the pass standard

set for the examination i n 1986

before he sat the examination? I

cannot see that this issue i s

relevant t o any o f th e reliefs

claimed by the Applicant and I deal

with it solely because it is one of

the issues directed to be tried by

the Order of the President.

The Applicant's evidence was

that h e knew fo r th e 1985

examination that the pass mark

was 50%; that he did not know if

the Society set a different pass

mark every year; that he did not

know what the pass mark for 1986

would be and he did not make any

enquiries about it. My conclusion

from this evidence is that while the

Applicant may not have known for

certain that the pass mark for 1986

was 50%, i f he had been asked

before the examination what he

thought the pass mark was, h e

probably would have replied that he

believed i t was 50%, but he was

not sure. The fact that he made no

enquiries about it shows either that

he felt he knew sufficiently what it

was or that he was not concerned

with what i t was. Between

knowing and not knowing there is

an intermediate area where there is

knowledge but also doubt as to the

accuracy o f that knowledge. I t

seems to me that this is probably

the Applicant's position and I do

not think that i t in any way pre-

judiced his performance i n the

examination. He was working t o

achieve the best possible result

irrespective of what the pass mark

was.

The final issue is whether the

Respondents are compellable i n

law to consider the Applicant as

having achieved a satisfactory

standard on the marks actually

received by him in the examination.

In my opinion they are not. It is only

when the Committee is satisfied as

to the proficiency of a candidate at

an examination that they must

declare him t o have passed

(Regulation 2 8 (1) 1975 Regula-

tions) so the Committee would

require to have been satisfied as to

the proficiency o f the Applicant

before he could claim as of right the

declaration he is seeking. But they

could have been so satisfied only if

the Applicant had reached the

minimum standard which they had

laid down, namely, a n overall

average of 50%. Having set that as

a standard o f proficiency t o b e

attained, they could not have been

satisfied with any candidate who

failed to attain it. And that is the

Applicant's position. He did not

succeed i n obtaining a n overall

average of 50%. And even though

he was only three marks short of

the standard, that margin, though

small, left him in the position of not

having attained the standard and

deprived him of the right to claim

that he ought to have been passed.

Counsel fo r th e Applicant

submitted that as the Applicant is

standing on 247 marks, the only

reasonable and just decision is to

declare that he has reached the

appropriate standard. But i f the

Court were to do that, it would be

substituting its view of what the

standard should be for that of the

Committee, and that is something

it is not entitled to do. I have already

held that the standard laid down by

the Committee cannot b e

challenged. If I were to declare that

the Applicant had reached that

standard I would be being incon-

sistent a s I would i n effect b e

substituting a different standard for

the Committee's standard which I

have already held to be lawful.

Counsel for the Applicant also

referred t o th e evidence o f

Professor Ellis who had said i n

regard t o the Applicant's marks

that most examination boards

would have brought him up to a

pass, but some would not have. He

submitted that on the basis of this

evidence the Court should declare

that the Applicant had reached the

appropriate standard. But such

150