120 / 244
to the draft memorandum were suggested and noted
the memorandum was approved.
Defence Bill, 1950
T
he
Secretary submitted a report on sections in the
Bill which require consideration by the Council.
Section 15 requires that the Judge Advocate-
General shall be a Barrister-at-Law. It was suggested
that solicitors should also be eligible for the appoint
ment. Sections 32 and 33, dealing with the acquisi
tion of land by agreement or compulsorily by the
Minister for Defence, do not incorporate the pro
visions of the Lands Clauses Acts and there is no
provision for the payment o f the costs o f the owner
o f deducing title in the case of compulsory acquisi
tion. It-was decided that representations on these
matters should be made and that the President
and Secretary should seek an interview with the
Secretary of the Department.
January 11th
T
he
President in the Chair : also present: Messrs.
Francis J. Gearty, Vice-President; James J.
O’Connor, James R. Quirke, Thomas A. O’Reilly,
Laurence F. Branigan, William J. Norman, John
J. Bolger, John J. Sheil, Henry St. J. Blake, John
Carrigan, Joseph P. Tyrrell, John S. O’Connor,
Daniel O’Connell, Louis E. O’Dea, John R.
Halpin, Reginald J. Nolan, John J. Nash, Patrick
F. O’Reilly.
The following was among the business transacted :
Tortfeasors Bill, 1950
T
he
Attorney General requested the observations
of the Council on the Tortfeasors Bill, 1950, which
was introduced in Seanad Eireann last month.
The Bill is an Act to amend the law relating to
proceedings against, and contribution between,
tortfeasors, and it provides that where an injured
person recovers judgment against a tortfeasor for
damages in respect o f an injury by tort, the judgment
shall not be a bar to an action by the injured person
for damages in respect o f that injury against any
other person, whether that other person is or is not
alleged to be liable as joint tortfeasor with the
original defendant. The Bill also contains provisions
as to damages and costs where two or more tort
feasors are sued separately, and apportionment of
damages amongst tortfeasors
inter se,
and contribu
tion between tortfeasors. The Bill had been referred
to a Committee for their report and the Council
now considered and adopted the report and directed
that it should be sent to the Attorney General.
Entries by solicitors in foreign directories
O
n
a report from a Committee the Council decided
to issue an opinion as to the information which
should be given in entries published by Irish
solicitors in foreign law lists and directories. The
opinion o f the Council is printed below.
Measuring o f Costs
T
he
Council considered a complaint from members
that in a case in which they were concerned with
Counsel their costs o f an application to the Court
had been measured at an amount which was barely
sufficient to cover Counsel’s fees and disbursements,
leaving only a very small margin. It was not clear
from the facts whether or not Counsel had expressly
or by implication consented to the measuring of
costs. The Secretary reported that from the records
of the Society it appeared that on several occasions
the Society has objected to the costs o f a party
being measured without the consent o f the solicitor,
or Counsel acting on the solicitor’s instructions.
The Council decided to direct the attention of
members to the fact that in general a solicitor is
entitled to ask to have his costs taxed, and that the
Court will not, in the absence o f consent, measure the
costs. I f a solicitor has reason to believe that if the
costs are measured an inadequate amount will be
allowed his proper course is either to ask the Court
for an order for taxation, or instruct Counsel to do
so. A copy o f a resolution o f the Bar Council
published at page 350 of the
Irish Law Times and
Solicitors'’ Journal,
o f 12th December, 1914, • is
printed below.
MEASURING OF COSTS : RESOLUTION
OF THE BAR COUNCIL
T
he
following resolution of the Bar Council of
Ireland was published at page 350 of the
Irish
Law Times Solicitors’ Journal,
of 12th December,
O H :—
“ The Council wish to call the attention of the ,
Bar to Or. LXV , r. 25, of the Supreme Court Rules
dealing with the measurement o f costs o f inter
locutory applications and to inform the profession
that this rule has of late not been strictly adhered to,
with the result that in many cases the costs as
measured by the Court do not even cover the
solicitor’s outlay.
“ The Council suggest that in future members of
the Bar shall not ask the Court to measure the costs
of interlocutory proceedings in which they represent
the successful party without definite instructions,
and that when they appear for the unsuccessful
party they shall not ask to have the costs measured
48