137 / 270
GAZETTE
JULY-AUGUST 1980
(Continued from page
129)
his firm to be set out, the first-named plaintiff was, by
letter from the Law Society dated 11 March 1977 in-
formed of the grounds of complaint; and in addition that
letter from the Law Society finished by again notifying the
first-named plaintiff of the course of action that the Law
Society proposed to take (i.e. applying for a freezing
order). On 21 March 1977 the Law Society again wrote
to the first-named plaintiff stating that unless his out-
standing accountant's certificates were delivered within a
week the Law Society would proceed. The first-named
plaintiff did nothing and on 1 April 1977 the Law Society
applied to the President (Finlay P.) for a freezing order.
Although the application for a freezing order under
Section 20(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1960,
was an 'ex-parte' one in the first instance, in fact on that
day the first-named plaintiff appeared before the President,
who gave him an opportunity of saying what he wanted to
say before the President made the order. On 4 April 1977
the first-named plaintiff gave guarantees to the High
Court and agreed to lodge money in Court and to co-
operate fully with the Law Society in allowing an
inspection of his books of account; on that basis the
President had discharged his order of 1 April 1977. Mr.
Justice Butler then said he had to infer that the guarantees
and undertaking were not complied with because on 7
April 1977, during the Easter vacation, the Law Society
had to apply again to the High Court (Hamilton J.) which
made an order re-imposing the freezing order and
adjourning the matter to 18 April 1977. On 18 April
1977 and again on 29 April 1977 the first-named plain-
tiff appeared with the Counsel before the President who
on each occasion continued the freezing order.
Mr. Justice Butler stated that he had no hesitation
whatsoever in finding on the facts of the case that the Law
Society had acted more than fairly and that both plaintiffs
knew well everything that was going on; and that from 28
February 1977 on, if not sooner, both plaintiffs knew
that, unless they co-operated with the Law Society, the
Law Society was going to apply for a freezing order.
The High Court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs
claim.
PUBLICATIONS
by the
Law Reform Commission
First Programme
for Examination of Certain Branches
of the Law with a View to their Reform. (Prl.
5984).
[Price: 40p Net]
Working Paper No. 1 - 1977,
The Law relating to the
Liability of Builders, Vendors and Lessors for the
Quality and Fitness of Premises. [Price: £1.50 Net]
Working Paper No. 2 - 1977,
The Law relating to the
Age of Majority, the Age for Marriage and some
connected Subjects.
(Price: £2.001.
Working Paper No. 3 - 1977,
Civil Liability for Animals.
(Price: £1.50].
First Report (1977)
(Prl. 6961)
(Price: 40p Netl.
Working Paper No. 4 - 1978,
The Law relating to
Breach of Promise of Marriage.[Price: £1.00 Net].
Working Paper No. 5 - 1978,
The Law relating to
Criminal Conversation and the Enticement and
Harbouring of a Spouse.
[Price: £1.50 Net].
Working Paper No. 6 - 1979,
The Law relating to
Seduction and the Enticement and Harbouring of a
child.
I Price: £1.50 Netl.
Working Paper No. 7 - 1979,
The Law relating to
Consortium and Loss of Services of a Child.I Price:
£1.00 Netl.
Working Paper No. 8 - 1979,
Judicial Review of
Administrative Action: The Problem of Remedies.
ÍPrice: £1.50 Netl.
Second Report
(1978-79) (Prl. 8855).(Price: 75p Netl.
Working Paper No. 9 - 1980,
The Rule against
Hearsay.
(Price: £4.00 Netl.
Available from:
THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION,
RIVER HOUSE,
CHANCERY STREET, DUBLIN 7.
tur t l enecks
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
SOUR HCNCR, I OBJECT
TD MDUR REFERRING
ID A¥/ CUENTAS THE
GLttLTV
FBRTV
HEHASN'T EVEN BEEN
TRIED,
e
*ET./
s
VJCH
LESS FOUND GOILIV.
byCbariaa Hnehar
(Reprinted by permission of the American Bar Association
Journal).
131