The Gazette 1961 - 64

of the accident. Member had already acted for the driver of the car in the defence of a prosecution taken against him under the Road Traffic Acts and he had also advised him that the injuries which he had received were due to his own negligence and that no action would lie against the owner of the car. The insurance company concerned objected to member acting for the owner of the car in his proposed claim and member asked for guidance. The committee reported that in their opinion member should not accept instructions. In the second case a client came to a member and informed him that his car had been involved in a motor accident in which his daughter had been injured. At the time of the accident the car had been on loan to the client's son but was being driven by another person. Member informed his client that his daughter would be entitled to recover damages against him as the owner of the car and the client then instructed him to look after his daughter's claim. Some days later the client called on member and brought him a claim form which he had received from the insurance company. Member assisted his client in the completion and signing of the claim form and forwarded it on his behalf to the company. At the company's request member supplied to them some particulars about the driver of the car and in replying he advised that he was acting on behalf of his client's daughter in her proposed claim for damages arising out of the accident. The insurance company objected and said that it appeared that there was a conflict of interest and that as the client had consulted member in the first instance the client's daughter should now withdraw her instruc tions to him. Member stated in reply that the instructions were given to him at the outset by the client to pursue the claim on behalf of his daughter and that he took no instructions from him whatever as to defending the proceedings. Furthermore his client was not driving the car or was not in the car at the time of the accident and at no time did member confer with the driver of the car. He was merely facilitating his client in completing the claim form in which there is nothing which would prejudice the company. The committee reported that in their opinion there would be no conflict of interest having regard to the fact that member's client was not the driver of the car and that there would be no objection to member acting on behalf of his, client's daughter. Road Traffic Act Prosecutions Costs The following is the complete text of a letter sent by the Society to the Head Office of each Insurance 3°

Government programme of law reform A memorandum on Registry of Deeds practice was approved and it was directed that it be sub mitted to the Department of Justice for consideration. The Council also considered memoranda prepared by members on the following subjects : Evidence, Administration of Estates, Guardianship of Infants and Wills. Vacancy on the Council The President read a letter received by him from Mr. John R. Halpin intimating his desire to resign from the Council. The President on behalf of the Council thanked Mr. Halpin for his valuable services to the profession as a member of the Council and a former President of the Society. Mr. Halpin thanked the President for his remarks. On the proposal of the President seconded by Mr. T. V. O'Connor, Senator Thomas J. Fitzpatrick of Cavan was co-opted pursuant to bye-law 38 to fill the vacancy caused by Mr. Halpin's resignation. Examination results The report of the Court of Examiners on the results of the first and second Irish examinations was adopted and the results declared as follows :— First Examination in Irish Fergus F. D. Armstrong, JohnB. Baily, Marguerite Joyce Boland, Ann M. T. Coady, Nicholas Coffey, Catherine P. V. Doyle, Michael P. A.FarreU, William O. H. Fry, Brian J. Magee, Cornelius L. McCarthy, Michael O'Shea, James A. Rogan, Gerald B. Sheedy, Stephen T. Strong. 15 candidates attended; 14 passed. Second Examination in Irish Brendan P. Byrne, Henry Owen Comerford, Stuart L. Cosgrave, lan Q. Crivon, Brian J. Gardiner, Graham M. Golding, George B. Holland, Daniel Kelliher, Patrick T. Listen, Bryan F. Lynch, Neil Matthews, Brian M. McMahon, James Joseph Nestor, David W. Prentice, Malcolm YafFe. 17 candidates attended ; 15 passed. Conflict of interest The Council adopted a report from a committee dealing with two queries from members, both of which involved alleged conflict of interest in Road Traffic Act cases. In one case a member was instructed to take proceedings for damages for negligence on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle who was also a passenger in it at the time