The Gazette 1952-1955

Section 3

(b)

of the Conveyance Act 1881 provides

that the expenses o f obtaining copies o f documents

not in the vendor’s possession must be paid by the

purchaser. Notwithstanding this Section the Com

mittee recommended that the Council should

publish a statement disapproving in general of

stipulations obliging the purchaser to pay the costs

of obtaining the originals and copies o f documents

o f the kind mentioned and recommending that

copies o f such documents should be furnished at

the vendor’s expense. The Council adopted the

Committees’ report.

Solicitors’ Notepaper.

attention o f the Council was drawn to a case

in which a solicitor’s notepaper bore the following

heading—“ Agents for the X Insurance Co.” The

Secretary was directed to write to the solicitor

concerned informing him that the Council dis

approve o f such a description on his notepaper and

to write also to the local Bar Association concerned

asking them to advise their members to follow the

ruling of the Council.

Institution o f proceedings without a pre

liminary letter.

August,

1945,

the Council expressed the opinion

in the Society’s

azette

that although the costs

o f a letter for application o f a debt are not recover

able from the debtor if he pays up before proceedings,

a solicitor should write such a letter, even although

he is not paid for it, in the general interests of the

public and the profession. Reference was made

to the case o f Rinder

Deacon (11 Ir. Jur. N.S.

414).

A member o f the public recendy complained

to the Society that a default civil process had been

served upon him without any letter o f warning from

the plaintiff’s solicitor. The Council having con

sidered their previous ruling decided to express the

following opinion

“ While a solicitor is not legally obliged to

write a preliminary letter before instituting

proceedings on the instructions o f a client on

foot o f a liquidated debt, he should normally write

such a letter. There is no impropriety in institu

ting proceedings without a preliminary letter, if,

in the opinion o f a solicitor, such a course is

necessary in the client’s interest.”

COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL, 1952

Memorandum o f the Society to the Minister

for Justice.

Council of the Incorporated Law Society of

Ireland wish to submit the following observations

on tdie Bill for consideration by the Minister for

Justice.

This Memorandum has been prepared

following consideration o f the Bill by a meeting

o f the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of

Ireland which had before it the views o f the local

Bar Associations throughout the country.

ection

It is the view o f the profession that the Judiciary

at all levels should be adequately remunerated and

that in the interests of the public it would be better

to err on the side o f liberality rather than on the

side o f economy.

ection

The Council sees grave objection to this Section

which in their view is calculated to reduce the in

dependence o f the Judiciary. The effect o f this

section seems to be that the Minister may pay

individual judges’ expenses on different scales. The

scale o f expenses for judges and justices should be

uniform and there should be no opening for possible

discrimination. It seems to the Council that under

Section 5 there could be discrimination which in the

case o f an individual judge or justice might be

thought to influence his approach to a case coming

before him. The Council propose that Section 77

o f the Courts o f Justice Act, 1936 should stand

with an amendment to provide that the expenses

should be awarded in accordance with a scale

prescribed by statutory instrument.

ections

6, 7, 10

and

i i

Division o f the State into circuits, District Court

districts and areas.

The Council submit that there is no case for the

reduction in the number of circuits from 9 to 8

as proposed by the Section 6 and that the powers

conferred on the Minister by Sections 6 and 7

in regard to the Circuit Court should not be exer

cisable except after prior consultation with the

Circuit Court Rules Committee in order to ascertain

the views o f the Judiciary and the representatives

o f the Bar and the solicitors’ profession. In a matter

which closely affects the working o f the Courts

it is considered only proper and reasonable that

the views o f the Judiciary and the professional

bodies should be ascertained before executive

action as the views o f the medical and other pro

fessions are sought before legislation or executive

action affecting these professions and their patients

and clients. For the same reason the powers under

sections 10 and 1 1 should not be exercisable without

prior consultation with the District Court Rules

Committee. The solicitors’ profession is in a par