The Gazette 1961 - 64

edited in 5 parts—History of the Legal System— The Legal Profession (Barristers and Solicitors)— Givil Procedure and Practice—Criminal Procedure— Evidence. Mr. Rudd, as a barrister who is a lecturer in the Practice of the Courts at the English Law Society's School of Law, is well versed in the intricacies of this subject, and, despite the difficulties, has succeeded in conveying the elements of court procedure to the student in as simple a manner as possible. It would be impossible to state concisely the amount of deep research that Mr. Rudd must have employed to state the principles so clearly and yet so concisely, and yet our learned author has succeeded in making his matter most readable. Although there are some differences between English and Irish Court practice, this need not deter the practitioner or the student from purchasing this well-produced and attractive book, because the practice that will be learned effortlessly will more than repay the cost. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST failure by auctioneer to pay over money to client—Notice ofproceedings to recover—Section 15 (i) Auctioneers and House Agents Act, 1947. Section 15 (i) of the Auctioneers and House Agents Act 1947 provides that where a plaintiff recovers a judgment against a defendant for payment of money in discharge of a liability incurred by the defendant as a licensed auctioneer or house agent in relation to the receipt or payment of money, the High Court maj, on application, order such money to be paid out to him (the plaintiff) from the statutory deposit maintained by the defendant. Where, however, the auctioneer has fulfilled his statutory obligation by means of a guarantee bond with an insurance company it is provided that if notice of the institution of the proceedings against the auctioneer is served before the hearing of the proceedings on the insurance company the Court may order the appropriate sum to be paid to the account of the Courts of Justice by the Company on behalf of the plaintiff. In a recent case an auctioneer had a bond from an insurance company and the plaintiff wrote a letter on April 3oth, 1959 to the defendant company giving notice of intention to institute proceedings for the recovery of a sum of .£138, the proceeds of a furniture sale, and that the claim would be against their insured, the auctioneer, and arising out of his default. A copy of the Civil Bill that it was intended to serve was enclosed and it was stated that it would be served on May 7th. The letter was formally acknowledged on June 3rd. The Civil Bill was duly served prior to the receipt of the acknowledgment. It was held by the Supreme Court (Maguire C. J., Lavery and

Kingsmill-Moore J. J.) affirming the judgment of Budd, J., that the intention of the section was that the notice must be served after the institution of proceedings but before the hearing. Accordingly, the letter of the 3oth April, 1959 having been sent before the institution of proceedings was not in compliance with the terms of Section 15 as it was only notice of intention to bring proceedings. Lavery J. dissented (In the Matter of the Auctioneers and House Agents Act, 1947; and In the Matter of Edward Nolan, an auctioneer; John Maher v. the Irish National Insurance Company, Ltd., I.L.T., March 3ist, 1962, page 92). "Exclusion of legal representation in arbitration—dis cretion of arbitrators. An application to set aside an award made by two arbitrators under the London Metal Exchange regulations was dismissed by McNair J., in Hemy Bath & Son Ltd., v. Birgby Products. The regulations provided that neither counsel nor a solicitor should be briefed to appear for either party without the consent of the arbitrators. The applicants, Birgby Products, contended that the arbitrators had im properly exercised their discretion by excluding legal representation at the hearing. They had perused papers which had been delivered by Henry Bath & Son Ltd., and also a letter from Birgby Products' solicitors before excluding legal representation and had then decided to adhere to the normal practice laid down by the rules. They had not examined Birgby Products case before arriving at this decision. It was contended that if they had done so an issue of fraud would have been disclosed. His lordship held that although it was always open to the court to interfere with the discretion of the arbitrators where it had been improperly exercised, he did not think that there had been any improper or excessive exercise of discretion in this case. As long as an arbitrator exercises his discretion honestly and fairly the court would be very loth to interfere. Even assuming that there had been fairly raised some question of fraud, he did not accept the submission that in every case in which fraud was raised in an arbitration the parties were entitled, in the face of the normal practice of the trade in which those arbitrations took place, to be legally represented. DISCLOSURE OF STATEMENTS MADE TO POLICE Changes in Crown Privilege Claims Two modifications of the procedure regarding disclosure in civil proceedings of statements made to the police in the course of a criminal investigation were announced by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords yesterday. Lord Kilmuir recalled that in June, 1956, he made 105