197 / 266
Vol. 48
No. 3
July,
1954
THE GAZETTE
o f the
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY
OF
IRELAND
President
J
oseph
B
arrett
Vice-Presidents
Secretary
J
ohn
J. N
ash
E
ric
A . P
lunkett
J
ohn
R . H
alpin
FOR CIRCULATION AMONG MEMBERS
MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL.
ist
J
uly
: The President in the Chair.
Also
present .-—Messrs. John J. Nash and John R.
Halpin, Henry St. J. Blake, Niall S. Gaffney, Francis
J. Lanigan, Patrick R. Boyd, Ralph J. Walker,
Reginald J. Nolan, Cornelius J. Daly, John Maher,
Peter E. O’Connell, Edmund Hayes, William J.
Norman, Thomas A. O’Reilly, Francis J. Gearty,
Sean O hUadhaigh, James R. Quirke, James J.
O’Connor, John Carrigan, Joseph P. Tyrrell,
Derrick M. Martin, Desmond J. Collins, Arthur
Cox, George G. Overend, Desmond J. Mayne,
Patrick F. O’Reilly, John J. Sheil.
The following was among the business transacted :
Lectures on Taxation.
T
he
Council considered a report from the Court
of Examiners on the syllabus of the new Course D,
' and appointed the lecturer.
Fees for medical reports.
A
mem ber
asked for the guidance of the Council
as to his liability on a claim by a doctor for fees
for medical reports furnished in two cases. In the
first case after proceedings had been issued the
client informed member that he was attending the
doctor and member wrote to the doctor for a report.
The doctor wrote asking whether member would
undertake to pay his fees for the examination and
report, and member replied that he would send
the doctor’s letter to his client who might be in
a position to discharge the fee. The report was
subsequently furnished. The case did not proceed
and member received no costs. On the facts before
them the Council decided that there was no express
or implied undertaking by rhember to pay the
doctor’s fee and that he was not liable.
In the second case member acted for the applicant
in a workman’s compensation case and informed
the client that it would be necessary to obtain a
medical report.
Member subsequently met the
doctor who stated that he would send the report.
Member subsequently wrote to the doctor for the
report but the question o f payment was not men
tioned.
The case was subsequently settled on
payment o f a sum to the workman, and costs,
but no provision was made for the doctor’s fee.
The doctor held member liable to pay his fee
i 9