285 / 424
GAZETTE
NOVEMBER 1995
Case Report
Alison Bloomer and Others v The Law
Society of Ireland, Ireland and the
Attorney General - 1994 No. 5680P High
Court [Brief summary of judgment of
Laffoy J delivered on 22nd day of
September, 1995]
The plaintiffs comprised 35 law students
of the Queens University, Belfast (QUB).
They sought various declarations against
the Law Society, Ireland and the Attorney
General seeking like recognition and
exemption from the Society's Final
Examination - First Part (FE-1) as was
afforded to law graduates of the National
University of Ireland, the University of
Dublin and the University of Limerick.
The plaintiffs also sought damages
(including aggravated and/or exemplary
damages) for conspiracy and/or breach of
duty and on several other grounds.
Among the Court's conclusions on
questions of fact were the following:
• The law taught for the QUB LL.B.
degree was the law of Northern Ireland
and the dégree reflects an inferior state of
the knowledge of the law of the Republic
of Ireland than a law degree from a
university established in the State.
• The Society does not teach substantive
law in its courses.
• As conceded by Counsel for the
plaintiffs during the hearing, the Society
would be justified in requiring a law
graduate of QUB to take and pass
Constitutional Law in the FE-1.
• The Society's Education Committee had
decided to reject the plaintiffs'
application because they were of the
opinion that its course content was not in
the law of this jurisdiction and for no
other reason.
• The evidence did not establish any
conspiracy, malice or improper motive
on the part of the Society.
• By contrast with the Institute of
Professional Legal Studies in Northern
Ireland, which operates an annual
numerical quota, the Society operates an
open policy in relation to admission.
• The Society's concern about numbers
relates to the capacity of its educational
infrastructure to cope rather than any
policy or motivation to restrict access to
the profession of solicitor.
The Court accepted the Society's
contention that there was only one real
issue in the proceedings, namely, whether
Regulation 15 was valid. Regulation 15 of
the Society's 1991 Education Regulations
created a system of exemptions for law
graduates of universities in the State from
the FE-1 (the Society's entrance
examination).
The Court's key findings on matters of law
were as follows:-
European Community law issues
• Contrary to what was contended by the
plaintiffs, neither Articles 48, 49, 52, 59
or 60 of the EEC Treaty were relevant to
the case.
• Article 6 of the EEC Treaty, which
prohibits both direct and indirect
discrimination on the grounds of
nationality, was relevant.
• Regulation 15 was liable to operate
mainly to the detriment of nationals of
another Member State of the
Community.
• A broad view of the function of the
Society must be taken showing that there
are two routes to qualification as a
solicitor in this jurisdiction. The first
route involved passing the FE-1 or being
exempted from it by a law degree
followed by the completion of an
apprenticeship and the Blackhall Place
training course. The second route
involved qualifying as a lawyer in
another Member State and transferring
as a qualified lawyer under Council
Directive No. 89/48/EEC (known as 'the
Mutual Recognition of Higher Education
Diplomas Directive').
• When the Society implemented that
Directive in 1991 it was expedient to
absolve solicitors who qualified in
Northern Ireland or in England and
Wales from testing in their knowledge of
Irish law to ensure that the hundreds of
Irish solicitors then working in England
and Wales could benefit from a
reciprocal approach.
• As a result, the Society applied a
difference in treatment to a QUB LL.B.
graduate and a Northern Ireland solicitor
even though both would probably have
an inferior state of knowledge of the law
of this jurisdiction than, say, a law
graduate of UCD.
• This difference of treatment could not be
objectively justified and, having regard
to the evidence, total denial of
exemptions from FE-1 to law graduates
of QUB, as applied by Regulation 15,
indirectly contravenes the prohibition on
discrimination on the grounds of
nationality in Article 6 of the EEC
Treaty, exceeded the powers of the
Society under the relevant section of the
Solicitors Acts and was invalid.
Irish Constitutional Law
• The Court held that none of the several
grounds argued by the plaintiffs
constituted an additional ground of
invalidity based on the Irish
Constitution.
Consequences of Invalidity of
Regulation 15
• Based on several High Court and
Supreme Court authorities the Court held
that its function in such circumstances
was strictly limited to declaring the
relevant provision invalid. The Court
could not re-write the provision.
Whether or not it should be replaced was
entirely a matter for the Law Society.
• The effect of the invalidity of Regulation
15 was that no provision now existed for
exempting any person from the FE-1.
• There was no evidence that any of the
plaintiffs had suffered any loss or
damage.
• All the reliefs claimed being refused, the
plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with
costs awarded to the Society, Ireland and
the Attorney General.
As the plaintiffs have appealed this
judgment to the Supreme Court, with a
provisional hearing date of 12 Dec.,
1995, it would not be proper for the
Gazette
to comment on it at this time. •
261