6 / 736
,'(f
X-'' £.,«- -
MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
4th May 1967: The President in the chair, also
present: Messrs Desmond J. Collins, Ralph J.
Walker, John J. Nash, Brendan A. McGrath, Bruce
St. J. Blake, Peter E. O'Council, William A.
Osborne, John Maher, Augustus Cullen, Robert
McD. Taylor, Gerald Y. Goldberg, James W.
O'Donovan, George A. Nolan, Gerard M. Doyle,
Daniel O'Connor, Francis J. Lanigan, Patrick
Noonan, Desmond Moran, Reginald J. Nolan,
Eunan McCarron, John Carrigan, Thomas Jack–
son, James R. C. Green, Richard Knight, Peter
D. M. Prentice.
The following was among the business trans–
acted.
Land Registry Conveyancing
The Secretary stated that he had received infor–
mation to the effect that pressure has been exerted
upon County Registrars to induce them to give
legal advice and to draw up or assist members
of the public in drawing up voluntary transfers
of registered property without professional assis–
tance. The President has written a letter to the
Minister for Justice and has received a reply
which he read to the meeting. It was decided that
the Council should seek an interview with An
Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, and the Attor–
ney General, and the President should select the
members of the deputation.
Circuit Court Costs
The Secretary stated that he had received a copy
of the Circuit Court Rules (2) 1967 revoking the
existing scales of costs and prescribing substituted
scales of costs and counsel's fees. The rules came
into operation on 22nd May 1967 and are on
sale at the Government Publications Sales Office.
Local Authorities: Delays in Sealing of Documents
The Council appointed a deputation to seek an
interview with the Lord Mayor of Dublin and the
City Manager and the Chairman of the Dublin
County Council and the County Manager
to
make representations in support of a change in
procedure, which might require legislative sanc–
tion, with a view to speeding up the sealing of
documents.
Client's Privilege against Disclosure
Members defended proceedings under the Road
Traffic Act on behalf of a client who was insured
under a third party policy against liability for
negligence. Under the terms of
the insurance
policy the company undertake to contribute to the
costs of the insured incurred with their consent of
defending the proceedings under the Acts. As a
condition of contributing
to
the costs of
the
defence they require a report from the defendant's
solicitor of the result of the proceedings and an
appreciation on the issue of civil liability. It may
come to light in the course of the proceedings
that circumstances exist e.g. that the defendant
was intoxicated which would enable the company
to claim reimbursement from the insured ol any
sum which they might be required to pay under
the policy as the result of civil proceedings. Fur–
thermore such evidence might make it very diffi–
cult for the client to obtain insurance in the event
of the company declining to renew the policy.
Member asks for guidance as to whether infor–
mation of this kind ought or must be passed on
to the insurance company if they undertake to
contribute to
the costs of
the defence of
the
criminal charges. The Council on a report from a
committee stated that if the defendant
is
the
client nothing that the client may disclose to the
solicitor may be notified to a third party without
that client's permission. If the solicitor is instructed
by the insurance company and agrees to give them
a report of the Court proceedings then the solici–
tor is bound to inform the insurance company
of all evidence given in court but the solicitor and
the client must be clear on the position and if
there is any doubt the client should be advised
as to the adverse consequences which may follow
if he agrees to his solicitor's applying to the insur–
ance company for a contribution
to
the costs
which may involve an agreement to disclose mat–
ters which may be prejudicial
to
the client's
interests.
Personal Undertaking
Member acted for a minor who had certain
monies in Court and was about to be discharged
from wardship. On the instructions of the minor
member gave an undertaking to pay a sum of
£150 to a third party being the purchase price of
a truck. The sum of £150 was to be paid out of
the monies
in court. The owner of
the truck
acknowledging the letter of undertaking wrote in
reply "no responsibility is accepted for any pos–
sible fault in the truck as it was bought after
inspection and trial". Ten days later the client
called on member and informed him that the
truck had broken down and that an inspection by
a motor engineer indicated that the truck was a