The Gazette 1958-61

considered. The matter was referred to the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association for their views. Client's privilege against disclosure A client when leaving the office of a solicitor whom she had consulted on professional business fell down the stairs and suffered personal injuries. She sub sequently consulted the solicitor as to her rights against the lessor of the premises. Member advised her thereon. She subsequently sought other legal advice as the result of which proceedings were threatened against member and the lessor jointly as being responsible for the maintenance of the stairway. When member passed on the claim to his insurance company they requested him to supply information as to the conversations between member and his former client on the subject of her injuries, and member enquired whether the communications were privileged. The Council stated that on the facts submitted any information which member received from the client as her solicitor was privileged and that it should not be disclosed to the insurance company. Conflicting interests A member was instructed by MR to act for her in a claim for personal injuries arising out of an accident while a passenger in a car driven by her husband FR which collided with a car driven by SM. When MR gave the instructions she was accom panied by her husband FR and member had then in his possession a copy of the husband's statement taken by the Garda Siochana. At the same time he accepted instructions from FR to write to the latter's insurance company to protect his no claim bonus. Member was advised that SM was responsible for the accident but at the same time he thought it advisable to notify FR lest counsel should advise that the latter should be joined in the proceedings. The insurance company of FR objected to member's . acting for MR having regard to his professional position in relation to both MR and FR and member sought guidance from the Council. The Council expressed the view that member should not act for MR in any proceedings brought by her against FR. December loth : Mr. Halpin and subsequently Mr. Nash in the Chair. Also present Messrs. Arthur Cox, James R. Quirke, Dinnen B. Gilmore, Francis J. Lanigan, George G. Overend, James R. Green, James J. O'Connor, Thomas A. O'Reilly, Ralph J. Walker, Brendan A. McGrath, Desmond J. Collins, Thomas V. O'Connor, George A. Nolan, John Carrigan, John J. Nash, John R. Halpin, William J. V. Comerford, Augustus Cullen, John

Sale of registered and unregistered land as one lot. Costs Members acted for a vendor of land which was sold for £12,000 held under three different titles, vi%., 150 acres freehold registered land held free of equities but subject to a land purchase annuity, 2 acres held in fee simple free of rent and i acre held under lease for 900 years. The last mentioned two parcels of land are not registered land within the meaning of the Registration of Title Acts and the whole three were sold as one lot without any division of the purchase money. Members enquired on what system the costs should be charged. By sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph (3) of the Land Registration Fees Order 1959 value for the purpose of a transfer on sale means the amount of the money consideration expressed in the transfer together with the amount of any registered charge and it is provided that where the transfer comprises unregistered property also the value shall be the proportionate cost of the consideration attributable to the registered property only as certified by the solicitor for the applicant or by a person who in the opinion of the Registrar is competent to value property. The Council stated that in their opinion the costs should be calculated by apportioning the consideration between two holdings, one being registered land and the other unregistered land, on the basis of the respective values and the appropriate commission scale fee should be charged on each. The two parcels of unregistered land one held in fee simple and the other under lease should be regarded as one holding for the purpose of costs. Certificate of discharge of income tax Members enquired whether the vendor is under any liability to hand over a certificate under section 6 of the Finance Act 1928. They took the view that a purchaser for value would not be liable for any tax due by the vendor under schedules A or B and consequently there would not be any obligation to obtain the certificate and they referred to the case of Dolan v. Joyce and Kirwan (61. I.L. T.R. 104). The Council many years ago expressed the view that a vendor's solicitor should obtain the statutory certificate under section 6 without any additional charge against the purchaser. The Council decided to reaffirm this ruling and informed members that a certificate of discharge of income tax under section 6 should be supplied without any charge against the purchaser. Part-time legal assistants A report from a committee on the question whether it is permissible or desirable to employ agencies offering part-time legal assistance was