The Gazette 1985

171 / 406

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
GAZETTE
Vol. No. 79 No. 5 June 1985
In this issue . . .
Comment 159
Joint Committee Building Societies/
Comment . . .
. . . Deposits at Risk — Again
Family Law Act 1981 169
Crossword 174
Land Registry Copy Folios 175
Medico-Legal Society 175
IBA — Singapore Conference 189
IN the recent case of Roche -v- Peilow the Supreme
Court has held that where a solicitor is acting for a
client who proposes to enter into an arrangement with a
builder/vendor, consisting of an agreement for the sale of
a site coupled with a building contract, there is an
obligation on the purchaser's solicitor to make searches
not only in the Land Registry but, if the builder/vendor is
a company, in the Companies Office in order to ensure
that the site is not encumbered by way of a legal or
equitable mortgage. In the case in question, the solicitors
had warned the purchaser that by making periodic
payments during the course of the building they were
liable to lose all the payments if the builder became
insolvent and the purchaser had accepted that risk. The
Supreme Court took the view that this warning of itself
was not sufficient and that the solicitor should have made
the search in the Companies Office in order to be in a
position to advise the client of the further risks involved if
the land were encumbered.
Professional Information 190
Executive Editor:
Editorial Board:
Advertising:
Printing:
Mary Buckley
William Earley, Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
Geraldine Clarke
Charles R. M. Meredith
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236
Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford
The views expressed in this publication, save where other-
wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not
necessarily the views of the Council of the Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in this publication
does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for
the product or service advertised.
The decision highlights yet again the urgent need for
arrangements to be made to protect deposits and
payments on account made to builders in respect of
houses in the course of construction. The Law Society has
in the past explored with Merchant Banks involved in the
financing of house building construction the possibility of
arranging for some method of protecting purchasers'
deposits and payments on account. It is clear, however,
that because of the under-capitalization of most builders
payments received from the purchasers are essential to the
financing of the work in progress. From its inception the
Law Society and the Dublin Solicitors' Bar Association
have continuously criticised the failure of the National
House Building Guarantee Scheme to include protection
of deposits and payments on account made to builders.
The recent Barrett Apartments case and now the Roche -v-
Peilow case have heightened the need for such protection
to be extended. The U.K. Scheme has provided protection
of this sort to the public for over twenty years and it is past
time that the Irish scheme came into line. •
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
159