216 / 266
District Court Rules Committee.
M
r
. D
ermot
P. S
haw
was re-appointed as one o f
the Society’s representatives on the Committee.
Lease. Incidence o f costs. Title.
T
he
purchaser o f a building site entered into an
agreement to acquire a building site by way o f lease
for a term o f 99 years in consideration o f a fine of
£200
and the yearly rent o f £ 12 . The agreement
was silent as to costs. The lessor maintained that
the lessee was liable to pay the costs o f the lease,
and the lessees maintained that the transaction was
substantially a sale and that the purchaser was not
liable for the lessor’s costs. The following questions
were submitted for the opinion o f the Council and
the parties agreeing to accept the Society’s ruling :—
(1) Whether the lessee as purchaser o f two
building sites for the sum o f
£zoo,
the sale
to be carried out by way o f lease for 99 years
at the yearly rent o f
£12,
was liable to pay
the lessor’s costs ?
(2) Whether the lessor was legally bound to
furnish to the lessee as purchaser o f the site
evidence o f his title to grant the lease for a
period o f 40 years prior to the date thereof,
and to furnish copies o f the relevant title
documents free o f expense to the lessee ?
The Council on a report from a committee held—
(1) That the transaction was substantially a sale
within the meaning o f Sims Clarke
v.
Ilet Ltd.,
and that each party should pay his own costs.
(2) The Council declined to express an
o p in ion
on the question o f law, but thought that the
vendor ought to furnish the usual title free
o f expense to the purchaser.
Entries in Directories.
T
h e
Council decided to revise the statement as to
the propriety o f certain entries in directories by
solicitors. The revised statement is printed in the
present issue o f
T
he
G
azette
.
Irish Land Commission.
Interviews by
officials with clients in the Solicitor’s
Absence.
I
t
was decided that the Secretary should approach
the Land Commission on the subject o f
c o m p la in t
received from members alleging that an Inspector
o f the Forestry Department had obtained a client’s
signature to a contract with the Department o f Lands
for the purchase o f a plot o f land in the absence o f
his solicitor.
Professional Secrecy. Client’s Privilege.
A
member
asked for the guidance o f the Council
in a matter in which he had been summoned to give
evidence on behalf o f the State concerning a sum of
£30 alleged to have been paid to another solicitor
to stamp a deed. The client did not wish that member
should testify, and member wished to know whethef
he was precluded from giving evidence by the client’ s
privilege. The Council on a report from a Com
mittee expressed the following opinion—
Written or oral communications, whether
in the form o f title deeds, letters, bills o f costs,
entries or statements which pass directly or
indirectly between the client and his solicitor
in his professional capacity and in the legitimate
course o f professional employment, are privi
leged in the client’s favour and the solicitor
may not, without the client’s permission,
disclose them to any third party. The privilege,
however, belongs to the client, and not to the
solicitor, and if directed by the client the
solicitor must make disclosure. The solicitor’ s
privilege is no greater than the client’s and if
the client cannot refuse discovery, the solicitor
cannot claim privilege.
I f the client in the present case were asked to
produce the deed and to say whether or not it was
stamped and the name o f the solicitor who stamped
it the Council thought that he would have to answer.
These facts appear to be facts patent to the senses
which would not fall within the definition of
professional communications. I f the client is bound
to give the information, the solicitor would also be
bound to give it. In the opinion o f the Council, the
proper course for member would be to decline to
answer any questions relating to the work which
he performed on the client’s behalf on the ground of
privilege. The question would then be argued between
counsel for the State and counsel for the defence,
and the Judge would decide whether the objection is
good.
I f the Judge held against the privilege
member would be bound to answer.
4TH N
ovember
: The President in the Chair. Also
present : Messrs. John J. Nash and John R. Halpin,
Vice-Presidents ; John Carrigan, Henry St. J . Blake,
Arthur Cox, John J. Shed, James R. Quirke,
Cornelius J. Daly, Reginald J. Nolan, William J.
Norman, Edmund Hayes, John Maher, Peter E.
O’Connell, Thomas A. O’Reilly, Sean O hUadhaigh,
James J. O’Connor, Ralph J. Walker, Patrick F.
O’Reilly, Patrick R. Boyd, George A . Nolan,
Desmond J. Collins, George G. Overend.
38