The Gazette 1977

GAZ

I I

JANUARY/FEBRUARY IV77

Correspondence

1 Rowe Street,

Wexford.

14th February, 1977

Re: Family Home Protection Act 1976

Dear Sir,

I would like to emphasise the point made in the article by

Mr. Garrett Gill S.C. (1976 Gazette, page 209) relating to

Section 3(1) of this Act. This section makes it clear that

unless made to a purchaser in good faith for lull value,

uny conveyance by one spouse without the prior consent

in writing of the other of a family home is vo'd. It must

follow that all other conveyances deriving from this, are

also void for the simple reason that no interest can pass

under a void conveyancc.

Accordingly, the purported exemptions in sub-clauses

(b) and (c) of sub-section 3(a) of the Act, are traps for the

unwary. These sub-clauses give the impression that a

conveyance of a family home, not made by one of the

spouses, is good in certain circumstances. In other words,

any subsequent conveyance in a chain complying with the

conditions (purchaser for full value, etc.) is good. This is

not so as Mr. Gill points out and if the original

Conveyance is void, nothing can save the others

stemming from it.

It is a serious objection to the Act to find that there is

no "provision to enable a spouse to give a subsequent

consent and so remedy a situation which may have arisen

Purely through inadvertence. As Mr. Gill says, this Act

requires urgent amendment.

Yours faithfully,

T. J. Kirwan

4, St. John's Park,

Mounttown,

Dun Laoghaire,

Co. Dublin.

18th February, 1977

Re: Family Home Protection Act, 1976

Dear Sir,

Thank you for shewing me Mr. Kirwan's letter on this

Act. One of the worst features of the Act will become

most manifest some years hence, when there have been

several conveyancing transactions affecting the same

Property after the passing of the Act. If

any one

of these

transactions, which required the prior written consent of a

Pouse, was effected without such consent it was void

unless the conveyance was for full value to a purchaser in

good faith. But how can one possibly be certain that a

Prior purchaser acted in good faith and had not got notice

°f some fact that prevented him from being a purchaser in

good faith? A bas'c principle of equity is that a purchaser

m good faith from the vendor to him is not put on enquiry

a s

to whether or not every prior purchaser was a

Purchaser in good faith. He is only affected by equities of

hich he himself has notice, actual or constructive.

Section 3 of this Act alters that position completely and

^»11 make the title of the most

bona fide

prchaser, advised

> the most careful solicitor, uncertain if there have been

several intermediate conveyances executed since the

Passing of this Act. If any one of these conveyances is

then no title passes under it. This seems to have been

uuyond the comprehension of the draftsman of this Act.

.1 regret to note that my bad writing has led to several

Sprints in the Article on this Act in your last issue.

"Constructive notice" appears twice as "Construction

notice", and "exist" in the last paragraph appears as

"assist". My apologies to your readers.

Yours faithfully,

Garrett Gill

94 Lr. Baggot Street,

Dublin 2.

11th February, 1977

Re: Report on Annual General Meeting

Dear Sir,

I refer to the report of the Annual General Meeting

contained on pages 205-207 of the issue of the Gazette

for December 1976.

Certain statements are attributed therein to me which

are incorrect.

On page 205, it is incorrectly stated that I asked when

telephone facilities would be available in Blackball Place.

What I asked was whether the telephone facilities

presently existing in the Solicitors' Buildings in the Four

Courts would continue and be expanded.

On pages 206 and 207, I am quoted as saying "if

increases to Legal staff contemplated by the Law Clerk

Joint Labour Committee are passed, the overheads will be

practically wiped out, due to office expenses". This is

inaccurate. What I, in fact said was that as a result of the

proposed increases referred to, the overheads would

increase to such an extent as to make it totally

unprofitable for a Solicitor to continue in practice, taking

into account that there is no corresponding increase

granted in fees to meet such increased overheads. At the

same time, I asked what progress had been made

regarding the application for increases in our fees.

Yours faithfully,

Quentin Crivon

V A C AN CY FOR POST OF A P P E AL

COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX IN THE OFFICE OF THE

REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

The Minister for Finance invites applications for

appointment to a post of Appeal Commissioner of

Income Tax.

The post at present carries a salary of £10,023 a

year (married). The post is pensionable.

Candidates musi be practising Barristers or

Solicitors in the State of not less than six years'

standing.

Application forms and conditions of service for

the post may be obtained from the Secretary,

Department of Finance, (Personnel Section), Upper

Merrion Street, Dublin 2. Completed Applications

should be sent to the same address to arrive not

later than 5.30 p.m. on 22nd March 1977.

Note: Persons who applied in response to the

previous advertisement need not re-apply.

Department of Finance,

Upper Mcrrion Street,

Dublin 2.

17 February 1977