The Gazette 1976

GAZETTE

JUNE/JULY 1976

Solicitors' Account (Amendment)

Regulations 1976

S. I. No. 125 of 1976

Solicitors' Accounts (Amendment) Regulations 1976.

The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland in exercise

of the powers conferred on them by Sections 4, 5, 66

and 71 of the Solicitors Act 1954 and of every other

power thereunto them enabling and with the concur-

rence of the President of the High Court hereby make

the following regulations.

1. These regulations may be cited as the Solicitors

Accounts (Amendment) Regulations 1976, and shall

be read together with the Solicitors' Accounts Regu-

lations 1967 (S. I. No. 44 of 1967) (hereinafter called

the Principal Regulations) and shall, to the extent to

which they are inconsistent with the said regulations,

alter and amend the same.

2. These regulations shall come into operation on

the 17th day of J une, 1976.

3. The Principal Regulations shall be amended by

the addition of the following Fourth Schedule.

Fourth Schedule

Any branch in Northern Ireland of a bank named

in the first Schedule.

Post Office Savings Bank;

Trustee Savings Banks;

Agricultural Credit Corporation Ltd.

First National City Bank;

First National City Bank of Chicago;

Algemene Bank Nederland (Ireland) Ltd.;

Banque Nationale de Paris (Ireland) Ltd.;

The Bank of Nova Scotia;

Chase and Bank of Ireland (International) Ltd.;

Bank of America.

Or any other bank licensed under the Central Bank

Acts as the Society may from time to time approve.

London clearing bank s: Barclays Bank Ltd.; The

Bank of England; Coutts & Co.; The District Bank

Ltd.; Glyn Mills & Co.; Guinness Mahon & Co. Ltd.;

Lloyds Bank Ltd.; Martins Bank Ltd.; The Midland

Bank Ltd.; The National Bank Ltd.; The National

Westminster Bank Ltd.; Williams & Deacon's Bank

Ltd.; The Westminster Bank Ltd.

Scottish clearing bank s: The Bank of Scotland; The

British Linen Bank; The Clydesdale Bank Ltd.; The

National Commercial Bank of Scotland Ltd.; The

Royal Bank of Scotland.

Dated this 17th day of June 1976.

Signed on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society

of Ireland

PATRICK

MOORE

President of The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

I concur in the making of the above regulations

THOMAS

A. FIN LAY

President of the High Court.

Th e effect of these regulations which are intended to

be of a temporary character, is to authorise solicitors

to open designated client accounts for clients' monies

with the named British and Scottish clearing banks, or

any branch in Northern Ireland of an Irish associated

bank, or in any of the other designated banks.

(making the wrongdoer liable in debt) cannot offect the

defaulter: he is already liable for his maintenance

debts. And the criminal sanctions stipulated in s. 20(2)

(up to £200 fine a n d / o r up to 6 months imprisonment)

only apply to a case where the defaulter has made a

false or misleading statement, not where he has made

no statement at all.

One element of the attachment procedure is likely

to be a particular source of uncertainty. T he order

served on the employer will specify two rates of de-

duction, (a) the normal deduction rate (a rate sufficient

in the Court's view to secure payment of the main-

tenance order and to make up over a period of time

any outstanding payments), and (b) the protected earn-

ings rate (the rate below which, having regard to the

resources and needs of the maintenance debtor, the

Court thinks it proper that his earnings should not be

reduced). The employer may not ma ke any deduction

which would result in the debtor's income falling below

the protected earnings rate. The uncertainty here lies

in the fact that, beyond considerations of the debtor's

needs and resources, the Court is given no guidance on

how to determine an appropriate protected earnings

rate. What exactly should the Court be aiming at?

Should it aim at a figure which is reckoned to be suf-

ficient to maintain the debtor at subsistence level?

Should the figure aimed at be higher in the case of a

person earning a large salary? Should the Cou rt ma ke

use of external standards (e.g. the current rate of un-

employment assistance) as guides?

Section E: Conclusion

Th e ma ny areas of discretion left to the Court by

the new Act will pose familiar problems of prediction

for the legal profession and their clients. But more im-

100

portant still, injustices may arise if these discretionary

powers are exercised in widely differing ways by differ-

ent Courts. Regular conferring among Judges and

Justices could help to minimise inconsistency, and it is

possible that mo re specific principles will be established

on appeal. But a responsibility also rests on the legal

profession to monitor the Act's operation and to d r aw

attention to any glaring inconsistencies in its application

by different Courts.

How successful the Act will be in terms of providing

more maintenance more efficiently for more spouses

and children remains to be seen. The absence of Legal

Aid will reduce its efficacy. But even with Legal Aid

the importance of the Act is not to be exaggerated.

Maintenance proceedings provide just one of a number

of mechanisms for helping to secure family incomes.

Tn terms of the number of spouses and children actually

benefitting recent changes in social welfare legislation

have made a more significant contribution to the prob-

lem of family maintenance than the new Act will ever

do. The schemes for Deserted Wives' Allowances

(introduced in 1970) and Benefits (1973), and for Un-

married Mothers' Allowances (1973) are already con-

tributing to the support of thousands of families (e.g.

in April 1976 4,411 wives together with 6,360 depend-

ents were in receipt of Deserted Wives' Allowances or

Benefits), and when the Social Welfare (Supplement-

ary Welfare Allowances) Act 1975 comes into oper-

ation many more will be benefitting. To a small extent

the large numbers in receipt of these allowances and

benefits is a reflection of the past inadequacy of main-

tenance proceedings legislation, but to a much greater

extent it is a reflection of a simple economic fact —

that where a marriage has broken down and a family

unit has split up, the liable spouse or parent is often

simply not earning enough to support two households.