262 / 266
Law—i.e., it must not be contrary to public policy
or to Irish law.
The party seeking to enforce a foreign award
must produce :—
(a)
The original award or a duly authenticated
copy thereof.
(b)
Evidence proving that the award is final and
that conditions (i) to (5)
snpra
have been
fulfilled. An award is not “ final ” if any
proceedings for the purpose of contesting
the validity o f the award are pending in the
country in which it was made.
The comprehensive nature o f the new legislation
will have been amply demonstrated.
LAND REGISTRY, CENTRAL
OFFICE.
D E LA Y S IN G E TT ING UP COPY FOLIOS.
Following representations made by the Society
to the Registrar of Titles it has been learned that
staff re-arrangements have been made with a view
to avoiding delays in tracing original folios await
ing indexing in the index branch. In future when
a solicitor or his representative bespeaks a copy of
a folio or requires an existing copy folio to be
written up on completion of a dealing and lodges
the appropriate fee (now a standard fee o f 6/- for
a new folio, or 3/6d. in the case o f a “ write-up ” )
together with an adhesive Revenue stamp o f 1/ -
(which may be a 1 /- postage stamp) the copy folio
will be available to be taken up within 3 to 5 days
depending on the general work of the Registry.
SOLICITORS’ GOLFING SOCIETY.
T
he
Summer Meeting will be held at Baltray on
Saturday June 4th when the prize of the Captain
(Mr. Desmond J . Collins) will be played for.
The St. Patrick’s Plate and Veterans’ Cup (over
50 years) will also be played for as well as the usual
runner-up and other prizes.
The Club Dinner will be held in the Clubhouse
at 7 o’clock and all members (whether competing
or not) are cordially invited. It is expected that
there will be a large turn out for the day and members
are requested to notify the honorary-Secretary
(Mr. L. K . Branigan, Four Courts) as soon as
possible of their intention of being present.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST.
Professional misconduct—Submitting a fa lse document
intending it to be acted upon.
The appellant, an advocate and solicitor practising
in the Federation o f Malaya, was instructed to act
for certain shareholders in a company incorporated
in Malaya who, being dissatisfied with the conduct
o f an annual general meeting o f the company,
desired to call an extraordinary general meeting
o f the company with a view to removing the directors
and secretaries and replacing them by their own
nominees.
For that purpose a requisition was
prepared, consisting of three documents in identical
terms, which were signed by 24, 29 and 37 share
holders respectively, totalling 90, and handed to
the appellant. It appeared that pursuant to section
115 o f the Malayan Companies Ordinance, 1940,
the requisition should have stated the names of
the dissatisfied shareholders’ nominees for appoint
ment as directors and secretaries, and a new
requisition was prepared, again in three sheets in
identical terms, to effect that amendment.
The
appellant cut off the signatures from the original
requisition and attached them by pasting them
on to the sheets o f the new amended requisition
and signed his name across the joint o f each of the
three composite documents. At the date o f the
later purported requisition certain o f the alleged
90 signatories were in fact, and contrary to the
appellant’s belief, no longer members o f the
company.
The Disciplinary Committee appointed under
section 27 of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance,
1947, were o f opinion that the appellant had been
guilty o f grossly improper conduct within the
meaning o f section 26 (2) (
b
) of the Ordinance, but
that he did not act with intention to deceive. That
finding was accepted by the Supreme Court, who
suspended the appellant from practising for a
period o f six months. The advocate appealed to
the Privy Council.
Held by the Judicial Committee o f the Privy
Council dismissing the appeal, that for an advocate
and solicitor knowingly and deliberately to submit
a false document intending it to be acted upon
was grossly improper conduct as being, in the
words o f Lord Esher in In
re
Cooke (1889) 5 T. L. R.
407, dishonourable both to himself and to his
profession. The submission o f such a document
with such intention in itself involved an element
of deceit. There could not be read into Lord Esher’s
words in
re
Cooke a statement that a finding that
intention to deceive was always an essential element
in grossly improper conduct.
Per Lord Cohen.—Their Lordships, however,
agree with Pretheroe, C .J., that for an advocate
and solicitor knowingly and deliberately to submit
a false document intending it to be acted upon, is
dishonourable both to himself and to his profession.
This in itself involves an element o f deceit.
For the reasons they have stated their Lordships
8 4