27 / 346
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1983
Correspondence
The Editor,
Incorporated Law Society Gazette,
™
• „
„
,
4.11.82
Planning Acts - Appeals
Dear Sir,
We have recently come across a case where an
objector has been effectively deprived of his right of
appeal, by circumstances outside his control; in the
case in question, the objector received on 19th
January by post from the local Planning Office, a
notification of their intention to grant Planning
permission, which notice although dated 18th
December, had been posted in an envelope franked
8th January 1982. He immediately on 19th January,
sent an appeal to An Bord Pleanala. Subsequently, on
28th January, he received from the Planning Office, a
copy notification of the final Planning permission,
which notice was dated 23rd January 1982; the
attention of An Bord Pleanala was at once drawn to
this fact.
Subsequently, by letter of 4th February 1982, An
Bord Pleanala wrote to the effect that as the appeal
had not been posted or delivered by 7th January
1982, they could not accept it.
This situation was referred to the Department of
the Environment, but despite several letters, it was
only on 13th May 1982 that the Secretary to the
Minister confirmed the ruling of An Bord Pleanala,
and that the Minister had no function in the matter
and could be of no assistance.
The situation therefore is that where for some
reason a letter from the Planning Office, as in the case
in point, is not delivered within the appropriate time,
the objector has lost his right of appeal. It would
appear therefore that all objectors should in their own
interests, check repeatedly in the Planning Office
whether a decision has been issued.
Yours faithfully,
David Wilson,
Solicitor,
Raphoe,
Lifford,
Co. Donegal.
practice of giving notice of decisions to persons who
made representations is highlighted by the
unfortunate series of events narrated above.
The Editor,
Incorporated Law Society Gazette,
Dear Sir,
It is unacceptable that a Solicitor acting in a
fiduciary capacity defrauds his clients of £150,000.00
and goes on to receive a suspended sentence of two
years and another Solicitor (lately deceased) defrauds
his clients of more than £750,000.00 This was far
worse than the Erin Foods scandal owing to the
privileged Solicitor-Client relationship, together
with the fact that in the cases of Solicitors the offence
was against individuals rather than a corporate entity.
Each of us bears a certain amount of responsibility
for these frauds and the writer supports our
Representative Body (i.e. the Law Society) in taking
further steps to supervise the accounts of it's
members and in carrying out additional spot checks
on Solicitors Accounts. In particular there is an onus
on every firm of Solicitors to furnish to the Society an
Accounts Certificate within six months of the end of
its financial year and when this is not done the
Society should have a 'trouble-shooter' Accountant
to vet the accounts of the offending firms. No
Practising Certificate should be issued to firms which
are more than one year in arrears with their
Accountant's Certificate.
If such a step is not taken then the Profession will
continue to number embezzlers among it's fold.
Further, the writer recommends that the Society
introduces compulsory courses in accounts and
management for Solicitors and that every practice be
required to have a partner or principal attend at least
one such course during the year. Further, there is no
reason why Professional Indemnity Insurance
should not be compulsory for every practice.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Crowley,
Solicitor,
77 Merrion Square,
Dublin 2.
Editorial Note:
The above letter draws attention to the anomalous
position of persons who make representations to a
planning authority in relation to an application for a
permission under Section 26 or 27 of the 1963
Planning Act while the planning authority is con-
sidering such application. Such persons have no
formal status under the Act and are not . "notice
parties". Most, if not all planning authorities do in
fact, as a matter of courtesy, notify the persons who
have made representations to them in writing of the
decision of the Planning Authority on the
application. The danger of relying on the authorities'
In the mat t er of Gordon J. Ross a solicitor
(formerly practising as Ross & Co., at 29 Pearse
Street, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath) and in the matter
of the Solicitors' Acts 1954 and 1960.
By Order of the President of the High Court dated the
24th day of January, 1983(1982 Numbers 1OSA, 11SA,
12SA and 13SA), the name of the above named solicitor
has been struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
James J. Ivers
Director General
19