320 / 364
Gaffney
rendered
distinguished
service
for
which he deserves the best thanks of the pro
fession.
Court Procedure
A working party consisting of Messrs T. A.
O'Reilly, Rory O'Connor, E. O. Knapp, Niall
McLaughlin and James Fagan was appointed to
consider the possibility of the adoption of a pre-
trial procedure in the High Court and Circuit
Court with allied questions including agreed medi
cal reports.
Conflict of Interests
Members were consulted by an insurance com
pany who forwarded their file with a High Court
summons served on the insured arising out of an
accident. The company
instructed members
to
interview the insured and fully investigate the
circumstances of the accident. At that stage the
company had not decided whether or not to cover
the insured under his policy in respect of the
accident. Members subsequently interviewed the
insured and in reply to questions they stated that
they had been consulted by the insurance com
pany with instructions to make the investigation
and that in the event of cover being confirmed
under the policy they would be acting for the
defendant in
the proceedings. They then
took
full particulars of the accident which disclosed
certain matters which would be material to the
company
if any question of disclaiming cover
under the policy arose. The insured subsequently
wrote to members claiming that the statement
which he had given to them was of a confidential
nature and objected to its being submitted to the
company on the ground that the company might
use his statement to deprive him of cover under
the policy. On a request from members for guid
ance the Council stated that it appeared from
the facts stated that they were acting for the
insurance company only. If they had made it
absolutely clear to the insured that they acted on
behalf of the company and were making investi
gations on behalf of the company as to whethe •
or not the insured was covered by the policy they
would be entitled to supply the information to
the company. If they had any doubt that the
insured appreciated his position the Council took
the view that it would be improper for the mem
bers to disclose the contents of the statement to
the company.
Lease, Varying Rent
By lease dated 4th September 1965 under the
long resident' equity under
the Landlord and
Tenant Acts a dwelling house demised to the lessee
105
for 21 years subject to the yearly rent of £20 and
if and when
the
lessee should cease to reside
therein subject to the yearly sum of £224. The
lease contained a covenant by the lessee not to
assign or sub-let without the lessor's consent at a
rent less than £240 per annum. The lessor sub
mitted a bill of costs drawn under the rack rent
scale on the annual rent of £240. The lessee sub
mitted that the costs should be charged under the
long lease scale on the yearly rent of £20. The
Council on the report from a committee on the
submission
to arbitration stated
that
the cost
should be charged on the rack rent scale on the
rent of £240.
SUCCESSION ACT, 1965
The Succession Act, 1965 (Form of Adminis
tration Bond) (No. 2) Rules, 1967 (S.I. No. 18
of 1967), prescribe the form of administration bond
to be used, as from the 1st day of April 1967,
under section 34 of the Succession Act, 1965. The
Instrument is available from the Government Pub
lications Sale Office, G.P.O. Arcade, Dublin 1,
price 9d.
DEATH DUTIES AND THE CHAIN OF
EXECUTORSHIP
SUCCESSION ACT 1965
Members of the Society acted for an English
bank which was executor of the will of a deceased,
who died domiciled
in England
in 1964 and
whose only asset in the Republic of Ireland was
a holding of 34 per cent War Stock on the Bank
of Ireland register. The deceased had been execu
trix during her lifetime of the will of a previous
testator. The Estate Duty Office in the Republic
forwarded a claim to the executors of the last
deceased for an account for death duties arising
on the death of the original testator, maintaining
that the ultimate testator was personal represen
tative by virtue of the chain of executorship of
the original testator and was therefore primarily
responsible accountable for all claims for duties
arising on the first death. At the time of taking
out the grant the bank had no knowledge what
ever of the fact that their testator was executor
of any other will or that any claims for duties
were outstanding. No assets came to their hands
from the first estate and in
the circumstances
they refused to admit or deal with the revenue
claims. As they were a bank domiciled outside the
Republic of Ireland they were in a position to
ignore the claims. The position would have been
different in
the case of an executor domiciled
within the Republic.