The Gazette 1987

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1987

Viewpoints

Adverse Possession and Encroachments by Tenants 5 Practice Notes 13

David Pigot — Perennial

Sportsman

Solicitors Accounts

Regulations

Duties of an Agent

to a Principal

In Brief 25 Correspondence 25

Professional Information

Executive Editor:

Mary Buckley

Editorial Board:

CharlesR. M. Meredith, Chairman

John F. Buckley

Gary Byrne

Daire Murphy

Michael V. O'Mahony

Maxwell Sweeney

Advertising:

Sean O hOisin. Telephone: 305236

307860

Printing:

Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford.

The views expressed in this publication,

save where otherwise indicated, are the

views of the contributors and not

necessarily the views of the Council of

the Society.

The appearance of an advertisement in

this publication does not necessarily

indicate approval by the Society for the

product or service advertised.

Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

Tel.: 710711.

Telex: 31219.

Fax: 710704.

Cover photo:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, newly

appointed President of the Law Reform

Commission. (See "In Brief" p25).

f \ n n r T T r

incorporated

/ 1 / L

I L i LAW SOCIETY

M H / r

I I r ™

I M B M

•

Vol. 81 No, 1 Jan Feb 1!

Viewpoints

Legal Aid Board

The 1985 Annual Report of the

Legal Aid Board confirms that the

Civil Legal Aid Scheme has

become, as far as Court pro-

ceedings are concerned, almost ex-

clusively a

Family Law

Legal Aid

Scheme. Of the 1331 cases in

which certificates were issued for

proceedings, a massive 1271 —

over 95% — were in Family Law

cases. On the Legal Advice side,

the position is more satisfactory in

that the proportion of Family Law

cases is lower being 6,326 out of

a total of 7,489. It is clear from

these figures that, because of the

priority which rightly has had to be

given to Family Law cases, the

scheme can now cater for only a

small number of clients in other

areas. The number of cases and

the complexity of the legislative

procedures, added to the dif-

ficulties which have arisen in rela-

tion to the administration by the

District Court of its new jurisdiction

in Family Law matters, all raise

again the question of alternative

procedures. It is to be hoped that

the newly appointed Law Reform

Commission may see as a priority

the question, of the review of the

appropriateness of our Civil Courts

as the forum for Family Law

disputes. It may be that "Family

Courts" will prove to be easier to

campaign for than to operate, but

there is a strong case for examin-

ing the proposal.

The Scheme is able to report pro-

gress in the opening of the new

Law Centres, though not at the

speed which had been hoped, and

offered very belated assurance that

the scheme is at last to be put on

a statutory basis. The Scheme

should not have been obliged to

wait seven years for its political

masters to do their homework.

There have been improvements in

the means test and changes in ad-

ministrative practice which have

enabled the Scheme to work more

satisfactorily, notwithstanding the

difficulties facing it. The Chairman

does well in his Report to remind us

that those " in need" include mar-

ried women and children caught up

in Family Law disputes and that

services for numbers of them and

others cannot be satisfactorily pro-

vided by virtue of the non-

availability of funds for the expan-

sion of the Scheme.

The Third Solicitor

Whether the market place proves

more effective than legislation in

ending the practice of charging bor-

rowers the fees of Lending Institu-

tions' solicitors for investigating

the title to domestic property re-

mains to be seen. Two recent

developments have shown alter-

native approaches to the problem,

one, that of A.I.B., in effectively

adopting the recommendation of

the Law Society Council in 1985 that

Lending Institutions should accept

Certificates of Title from borrowers'

solicitors and, the other, the

Building Societies Regulations 1987.

The regulation dealing with the

investigation of title is very nar-

rowly drafted, only limiting the

Societies from charging the costs

incurred in connection with the in-

vestigation of title to any property

offered as security, either as a

specific fee for that service or as

part of "any fee" charged in

respect of the loan. This clearly en-

titles a Building Society to continue

its previous practice of requiring

that its own solicitors investigate

title on its behalf and to pay its own

solicitors their fees for that work as

part of its general administration

expenses. Any increases in such

expenses can only be recouped

either by lowering the interest rate

to investors or by charging bor-

rowers a higher interest rate. Com-

petition for funds among financial

institutions is so intense that even

if the Building Societies were

(Contd. on p.5)