148 / 328
Government programme of law reform
A memorandum on Registry of Deeds practice
was approved and it was directed that it be sub
mitted to the Department of Justice for consideration.
The Council also considered memoranda prepared
by members on the following subjects :
Evidence,
Administration of Estates, Guardianship of Infants
and Wills.
Vacancy on the Council
The President read a letter received by him from
Mr. John R. Halpin intimating his desire to resign
from the Council. The President on behalf of the
Council thanked Mr. Halpin for his valuable services
to the profession as a member of the Council and a
former President of the Society. Mr. Halpin
thanked the President for his remarks.
On the proposal of the President seconded by
Mr. T. V. O'Connor, Senator Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
of Cavan was co-opted pursuant to bye-law 38 to
fill the vacancy caused by Mr. Halpin's resignation.
Examination results
The report of the Court of Examiners on the
results of the first and second Irish examinations
was adopted and the results declared as follows :—
First Examination in Irish
Fergus F. D. Armstrong, JohnB. Baily, Marguerite
Joyce Boland, Ann M. T. Coady, Nicholas Coffey,
Catherine P. V. Doyle, Michael P. A.FarreU, William
O. H. Fry, Brian J. Magee, Cornelius L. McCarthy,
Michael O'Shea, James A. Rogan, Gerald B. Sheedy,
Stephen T. Strong.
15 candidates attended; 14 passed.
Second Examination in Irish
Brendan P. Byrne, Henry Owen Comerford,
Stuart L. Cosgrave, lan Q. Crivon, Brian J. Gardiner,
Graham M. Golding, George B. Holland, Daniel
Kelliher, Patrick T. Listen, Bryan F. Lynch, Neil
Matthews, Brian M. McMahon, James Joseph
Nestor, David W. Prentice, Malcolm YafFe.
17 candidates attended ; 15 passed.
Conflict of interest
The Council adopted a report from a committee
dealing with two queries from members, both of
which involved alleged conflict of interest in Road
Traffic Act cases.
In one case a member was
instructed to take proceedings for damages for
negligence on behalf of the owner of a motor
vehicle who was also a passenger in it at the time
of the accident. Member had already acted for the
driver of the car in the defence of a prosecution
taken against him under the Road Traffic Acts and
he had also advised him that the injuries which he
had received were due to his own negligence and
that no action would lie against the owner of the
car. The insurance company concerned objected
to member acting for the owner of the car in his
proposed claim and member asked for guidance.
The committee reported
that in their opinion
member should not accept instructions.
In the
second case a client came to a member and informed
him that his car had been involved in a motor
accident in which his daughter had been injured.
At the time of the accident the car had been on
loan to the client's son but was being driven by
another person. Member informed his client that
his daughter would be entitled to recover damages
against him as the owner of the car and the client
then instructed him to look after his daughter's
claim.
Some days later the client called on member
and brought him a claim form which he had received
from the insurance company. Member assisted his
client in the completion and signing of the claim
form and forwarded it on his behalf to the company.
At the company's request member supplied to them
some particulars about the driver of the car and in
replying he advised that he was acting on behalf
of his client's daughter in her proposed claim for
damages arising out of the accident. The insurance
company objected and said that it appeared that
there was a conflict of interest and that as the client
had consulted member in the first
instance the
client's daughter should now withdraw her instruc
tions to him. Member stated in reply that the
instructions were given to him at the outset by the
client to pursue the claim on behalf of his daughter
and that he took no instructions from him whatever
as to defending the proceedings. Furthermore his
client was not driving the car or was not in the car
at the time of the accident and at no time did member
confer with the driver of the car. He was merely
facilitating his client in completing the claim form
in which there is nothing which would prejudice
the company. The committee reported that in
their opinion there would be no conflict of interest
having regard to the fact that member's client was
not the driver of the car and that there would be
no objection to member acting on behalf of his,
client's daughter.
Road Traffic Act Prosecutions Costs
The following is the complete text of a letter sent
by the Society to the Head Office of each Insurance
3°