GAZETTE 12 Cover story...ILT digest 39 Tax commentary 47 Diary dates 50 People and places 51 Book reviews 53 Professional information 54 Editor: Conal O’Boyle MA Deputy Editor: Mary

January/February 1997 LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE 1

CONTENTSCONTENTS

REGULARS

President’s message 3

Viewpoint 4

Letters 6

News 8

Briefing 33

Council report 33

Committee reports 34

Practicemanagement 36

Eurlegal 37

ILT digest 39

Tax commentary 47

Diary dates 50

People and places 51

Book reviews 53

Professional information 54

Editor: Conal O’Boyle MA

Deputy Editor: Mary Kinsella

Editorial Secretaries: Andrea MacDermott/Catherine Kearney

Designer: Nuala Redmond

Advertising: Seán Ó hOisín, tel: 837 5018, fax: 830 7860

Printing: Turners Printing, Company Ltd, Longford

Cover story:The myth of the paperless officeEach new development in information technology has been hailed as yet another step towards the mythical paperless office, but how realistic is this? And are solicitors lagging behind other professions when it comes to getting to grips with IT? Kyran FitzGerald reports

Watching thedetectivesPrivate detectives must thinkthey live in the wild west. Get them talking about theirwork and they’ll start to tell you about all the ‘cowboys’they know. Conal O’Boyle takes a look at the good, the bad and the ugly

Doctors, lawyers and theHarvard Report

Nothing is more likely to set the medical and legal professions at each other’s throats than the issue of medicalnegligence. Robert Harley reports on a recent US studythat throws a little light on this contentious subject

Civil Legal Aid Act: falling short of the mark?The 1995 Civil Legal Aid Act was supposed to be the great leap forward for legal aid, but is the new service really any better than theold non-statutory scheme? Mary Johnsonargues that, 18 years on, the song remainsthe same

The millenniumtimebombA simple computer problem may have thepotential to put hundreds of Irish and UKcompanies out of business, but how many managers are fullyaware of the problem? Jacqui Woodhouse reports

The new breed of solicitorThe days are long gone when you could qualify as a solicitor andstay in one practice until you retired. Increasing competition is lead-ing many solicitors to consider careers outside private practice.Catherine Dolan talks to some who have made the move

12

17

20

GAZETTEGAZETTE

28

The views expressed in this publication, save where otherwise indicaticated, are theviews of contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Law Society.The appearance of an advertisement in this publication does not necessarily indicateapproval by the Law Society for the product or service advertised.

Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7, tel: 6710711, fax: 671 0704.

Editorial Board: Dr Eamonn Hall (Chairman), Michael O‘Mahony, Vincent Power, Helen Sheehy, Ken Murphy

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1997JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1997

30

25


PRESIDENT’S MESSAGEPRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Welcome to first issue of thenew Law Society Gazette.Since it was first published

in 1907, the Gazette has been the LawSociety’s principal means of communi-cation with its members and, indeed, inlatter times, to a much wider audience.

In recent years it has been lovinglyput together by the Editorial Board, ledby the present chairman Dr EamonnHall, John Buckley, John Costello,Michael O’Mahony, Junior VicePresident Elma Lynch, and the DirectorGeneral, Ken Murphy. Until recently,Mary Kinsella was the acting editor. Without their care and devotion –and, indeed, the many long and tedious hours spent assembling eachissue – the Gazette would have slowly died.

A Gazette Review Group was established last year in tandem with theEditorial Board. It was unanimously felt that in order to go forward, weneeded professional guidance and a professional editor. This, I ampleased to say, we found in the person of Conal O’Boyle, the presentEditor and the man responsible for the relaunching of the Gazette in itsnew format.

Conal is an accomplished journalist who acquired his expertise inLondon and – where else? – but Cork. He was responsible for the award-winning Certified Accountant magazine which has an international cir-culation of 60,000. He has brought his editorial skills to the Law Societyand the result is the new-look magazine that you see today.

The new format has been carefully thought-out by Conal, and it hasthe wholehearted approval of the new Editorial Board. The magazine willbe more tightly structured than before and will aim to achieve a good bal-

ance between fact and opinion, newsand features. The new Briefing sectionis designed to meet members’ profes-sional needs – and to keep theminformed about the work that theSociety is doing on their behalf. Themixture of general features and legalarticles will hopefully keep you bothinformed and entertained. All in all, Iam confident that the new Gazette willproject an image of energy and imagi-nation for the solicitor’s profession aswe head towards a new millennium.

The Gazette is your magazine andmust reflect your views and opinions. Since the Editor cannot make theseup, you must send them to him. I know he will welcome your views onthe direction of the new Gazette and your suggestions for improving itsformat or content. Indeed, we would like more members of the professionto submit material to the Gazette – articles, obituaries, pictures, bar news,comment and, of course, letters.

Finally, thanks are due to everyone working on the Gazette, but par-ticularly to Nuala Redmond who has worked so closely with Conal tocome up with a striking design for the new magazine.

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Conal O’Boyle and the newEditorial Board who have relaunched the Gazette, to thank them for theirwork in the past, to wish them well in the future, and to encourage themto make the Gazette essential and interesting reading for the profession inthe years to come.

Frank DalyPresident

Moving forward

ENDURING POWER OF ATTORNEY PRESCRIBED FORMNOW

AVAILABLE onDISK

As per SI no 196 and 287 of 1996. Available in Windows 3.1 and WordPerfect ‘95. Reproduced with the permission of the Controller, Government Stationery Office. Price per disk (incl p&p): £5 + 1.05 (VAT): £6.05

ENDURING POWER OF ATTORNEY – DISKThe Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. Fax: (credit card holders only) 671 0704.

Please supply disk(s). (Disk suitable for Windows & DOS, for Word & WordPerfect.)

I enclose a cheque for £ OR you are authorised to credit £ to my credit card

(Access, Visa, Mastercard or Eurocard only)

Card Type: Card No: Expiry Date:

Name:

Firm address

LAW SOCIETYTAXATIONCOMMITTEE

VIEWPOINTVIEWPOINT

4 LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE January/February 1997

Anew president, Frank Daly, anew editor, Conal O’Boyle,

and a new Gazette; all three cameto the fore in late 1996. This new-look Gazette marks the fruits oftheir labours and of other reform-ers in the Law Society. Coincid-entally in 1996, Pravda, the oncepowerful mouthpiece of the SovietCommunist Party, was shut down– despite some bitter protests. (Thetitle Pravda may, however, surviveon a diet of crime and sex!)

Pravda, the world’s most inap-

propriately named newspaper(meaning ‘truth’ in Russian), wasfounded by Lenin in 1912, fiveyears after the first publication ofthe Gazette.

The Law Society coat of armsbears the motto Veritas vincet (lettruth prevail). The Gazette, found-ed in 1907, was the Pravda of theLaw Society. This was perfectlyunderstandable: the Gazettereflected the official policy of theSociety through rulings, practicedirections and announcements.Now there is room for some dis-sent and criticism alongside theofficial pronouncements.

Whiff of advertisingThe Pravda of the Law Societywithin memory of many solicitorsmakes fascinating reading. Forexample, over the years official-dom, through the pages of theGazette, was preoccupied with theslightest whiff of advertising bysolicitors. The arrival of televisioncreated great problems for the pro-fession. The Council of the Societydeliberated and issued its edict inthe Gazette of October/November1961. A solicitor was permitted to

participate in a radio programmeon a non-legal subject using hisown name ‘but his professionaloccupation should not be dis-closed’. In a radio broadcast on alegal subject, he (there were fewwomen solicitors around) couldbe described as ‘solicitor’ but hisanonymity must be preserved: hisname could not be disclosed.

No solicitor was permitted toparticipate in a television pro-gramme on a legal subject with-out the permission of the LawSociety. Such permission, ‘ifgiven’, was conditional on ‘com-plete anonymity’ being preserved‘both as regards the name of thesolicitor and his professional occu-pation’. A necessary pre-condi-tion before any permission wouldbe entertained allowing a solici-tor to appear on television was thedelivery of an ‘undertaking by thesolicitor not to accept any newclient whom he knows or had rea-sonable ground for thinking [note‘thinking’ as distinct from ‘know-ing’] may have come to him as aresult of the TV broadcast’.

Seven years later, in December1968, the Gazette ran a piece head-

lined ‘Lectures, articles, radio andtelevision broadcasting by solici-tors’. In this article the Council,while promising an element of lib-eralisation, emphasised that ‘thewell-established prohibitionagainst any activity on the part ofa solicitor for the purposes of self-advertisement and the attraction ofbusiness is unaltered’.

The Golden Pages classifiedtelephone directory arrived inIreland in 1969. In the Gazette ofFebruary 1969, under the headingof ‘Classified telephone direct-ory’, the Council of the Societyadvised members not to have ‘theirnames listed in bold type in a clas-sified directory’. To do so would‘in the opinion of the Council,amount to advertising and unfairattraction of business, unless adopt-ed by the whole profession’. Theneeds of the profession and theirclients would be adequately served,according to the Council, if mem-bers and firms used ‘the ordinarysmall type’.

Golden age of humour?There was some humour in theofficial Gazette. For example, theMarch 1967 issue ran a piece byan anonymous contributor givingeight reasons justifying the recruit-ment of an assistant solicitor.Pressure of business – that is, nec-essary attendance at race meetings– was one reason! Another justi-fication cited the ‘early bird catch-ing the worm’ rule, and the prin-cipal’s inability to make the officebefore 10.30am. The opportunityto act as teacher to a ‘disciple’appeared attractive; the fact that‘the disciple’ was more familiarwith ‘the tablets of the law showedthat he had no practical experi-ence’. A ‘more youthful lackey’,the display of a business acumen‘for slave labour’ and the accu-mulation of files ‘on a long fin-ger’ necessitated ‘a fall guy’. Now,32 years later, this piece would becensured for obvious reasons!

The history of the Gazette is thehistory of law, lawyers and theLaw Society for the past 91 years.May the new magazine thrive andendeavour to inform and entertainits readers.

Pravda and the new Gazette

G

Dr Eamonn Hall is the Chief LegalOfficer of Telecom Eireann

Welcome to the new-lookLaw Society Gazette. I

hope you enjoy the changes wehave made to the magazine:everything we have done – fromthe look of the pages to the toneand content of each article – hasbeen designed to keep youentertained and informed.Doubtless such a radical over-haul will not be everyone’s cupof tea, but magazines mustmove with the times. I believethe new Gazette projects theright image for an increasinglyyoung and dynamic profession.

Although I will be commis-sioning most of the editorialmaterial that appears in theGazette, I am always happy toconsider any article for possiblepublication. A good startingpoint for readers who feel theymight like to write for the mag-azine would be to drop me a lineat Blackhall Place, with a brief

A note from the Editor

summary of what they have inmind to write about.

In keeping with the coverstory of this month’s issue, allarticles should be submitted ona 3.5 inch disk in Word,WordPerfect, Mac or ASCII for-mats. That will save us fromhaving to retype the whole arti-

cle and very much improve yourchances of publication!

As far as editorial policy isconcerned, my main aim is toensure that people read the mag-azine – and that when they do,they understand what they read.That means jargon is out andplain English is in. All articleswill be edited for sense, styleand length (1,500-1,750 wordsis an ideal length for an article:academic treatises, completewith footnotes, should be savedfor text books).

We will try to make sure thatwe keep up the standard we haveset ourselves in this first issue –but if we fail, we expect you tolet us know. This is your maga-zine. If you have news, views oryou’re just plain contrary – wewant to hear from you.

Enjoy your reading!

Conal O’Boyle, Editor

Conal O’Boyle

PHO

TO:

ROSL

YN

BYRN

E


VIEWPOINTVIEWPOINT

The members of Victim Supportand the solicitors’ profession

deal with the victims of crime every-day, and we are better placed thanmost people to appreciate just howmuch of a raw deal victims receiveunder the present system. Prisonofficers and gardai injured in thecourse of their duties are entitledto compensation from the State –why should the ordinary citizen whois a victim of crime be treated anydifferently? In my view, the Stateowes a duty of care to protect itscitizens in whatever way it can.

Victim Support was set up tosupport and help the victims ofcrime. As its chairperson, I amonly too aware of how inadequatethe current system of State com-pensation is. Since 1986, theCriminal Injuries CompensationTribunal has been barred fromawarding compensation for painor suffering or for property lossor damage to victims. At that time,the reasons given for changing thesystem were that the system wasbeing abused, and that it was cost-ing too much.

There was not, and is not to myknowledge, any evidence to sup-port the contention that the sys-tem was abused. Furthermore, theexcuses used to justify changingthe scheme are an insult to thevictims of crime who, it must beremembered, are one of the mostvulnerable groups in our society.

Victim Support, along with theLaw Society’s sub-committee onvictims of crime under the chair-manship of Keenan Johnson, hasmet the Minister for Justice andmade detailed submissions to herDepartment, seeking the re-intro-duction of some form of compen-sation for pain and suffering. The

sub-committee has suggested thatits proposals could be funded fromcourt fines and any monies recov-ered from illegal activities. It hasalso argued that the monies recov-ered by the Criminal Assets Bureaureflect the spoils of crime and, assuch, are both morally and legal-ly the property of crime victims.

I accept that the level of com-pensation for pain and sufferingpayable to crime victims cannotmatch that available under civillaw, but a modest payment for painand suffering is important, partic-ularly to the victim, as it consti-tutes a recognition of their plightby the State and the judicial sys-tem. It is my experience that, inmany cases, the failure to awardcompensation to the victim isadding further to their sufferingand trauma.

There are hundreds of caseswhich reflect the injustice perpet-uated by the present system. I amreminded of a recent case wherean elderly gentleman was set uponby three thieves when he returnedfrom evening mass. His propertywas damaged to the value of £300and he needed hospital treatmentfor multiple bruising and stitches

for a gash to his right eye. Theamount of compensation paid bythe Criminal CompensationTribunal was £140. The perpetra-tors of this crime were never caughtand this gentleman has to live withthe traumatic consequences of hisordeal for the rest of his life. Theshabby way in which the State hastreated him has exacerbated hisunfortunate plight.

European victims’ week laterthis month is an appropriate timeto press the Government to act onthe submissions that have beenmade by the Law Society sub-com-mittee, and I call on the Ministerto do so. Moreover, the recentestablishment of the CriminalAssets Bureau means that thescheme proposed by the sub-com-mittee could be self-financing.

The plight of the victim needsto be recognised and acknowl-edged by our politicians and law-makers as a matter of urgency.The members of Victim Supportare deeply indebted to the LawSociety and to its sub-committeemembers, Keenan Johnson,Finnoula Breen-Walsh andMichelle O’Boyle, for their effortsand their support.

Time to make crime pay

G

Whatever possessed you to become a lawyer?Never admit possession. Hypothetically, my late father alwaysimpressed upon me that in general practice you might never get rich butyou would never be bored. I must say that I am glad to have followedhis example.

Which living person do you most admire?Nelson Mandela – only a litigator could be that patient.

What’s the best piece of advice you ever got?A lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client has been immea-surably more practical than Trust X bank – your friend for life.

How do you cope with stress?Allocating myself a treat after a problem file usually works well. Moregenerally, Dundalk RFC, Doheny and Nesbitt (or similar) and goodcompany.

Which case do you wish you had been involved in?Whitby v Mitchell (1890). This would represent the only realisticprospect of my understanding the rule against perpetuities.

What’s your favourite piece of music?Anything by Elvis Costello (as my neighbours can corroborate).

If you could make one change to the legal system, what would it be?The court listing system – to introduce incentives for netting issues, toreduce court lists full of cases that could be resolved if minds wereapplied.

James MacGuill is the principal of MacGuill and Company inDundalk. He qualified in 1986 and is chairman of the LawSociety’s Parliamentary & LawReform and Professional Guidancecommittees. He obviously doesn’t watch enough TV.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

What would improve the quality of your life?To bridge the achievement gap between midnight resolutions andunread diet sheets.

Do you think Coronation Street has got worse since Raquel left?Why? Is it on more often?

If you weren’t doing what you do, what would you like to work at?I would like to spend three months as a judge – on the understandingthat all serving judges were returned to practice with difficult clientsor cases – I would then retire to do some teaching in a developingcountry, with satellite reception on the beach to watch the FiveNations.

Jennifer Guinness is chairwoman of Victim Support

G

VIEWPOINTVIEWPOINT


From: Pat O’Connor, P O’Connor & Son, Mayo

With reference to KeenanJohnson’s article on hos-

pital charges (Gazette, November1996, p333), I agree that someuncertainty does appear to existin the minds of our colleagues andmembers of the Bar when deal-ing with the settlement of per-sonal injury actions involvinghealth board charges.

Is it not the case that three HighCourt decisions have been givenwhich have clearly disallowed theformula used by health boards, atthe suggestion of the Departmentof Health, in arriving at the chargesto be made to victims of road traf-fic accidents? That being the case,I am of the view that the law isquite certain and until changed –whether by way of Supreme Courtdecision or legislative action – neednot be of such concern to practi-

tioners and their clients as is some-times suggested.

The law has been clearly estab-lished by the High Court. Anychange that might come aboutwhether on appeal to the SupremeCourt or otherwise cannot haveretrospective effect.

I have a letter from one healthboard which states, inter alia, thatthe health board ‘has agreed toaccept the current High Court rul-ings of £100 per day in respect of

accommodation and treatment forhospitalisation arising from roadtraffic accidents’.

Practitioners might also beinterested to note that some healthboards have sought to recover the‘Health Act’ charges in additionto private and semi-privatecharges. This is clearly a dupli-cation of charging and was so heldin the District Court decision ofSouthern Health Board v Duffy(January 1996).

Hospital charges under the microscope

The laws that affect the mediaare a mess. They fail to protect

adequately the rights of the citizento his or her good name and priva-cy; they unduly restrict the mediain reporting and commenting onpublic affairs; and the libel lawsare confused and uncertain.

The most notable failure of thelaw to protect a person’s reputa-tion is the refusal to broaden thescope of civil legal aid to includedefamation actions. This wouldseem to conflict with the constitu-tional requirement on the State ‘byits laws [to] protect as best it mayfrom unjust attack and, in the caseof injustice done, vindicate ... thegood name ... of every citizen’(Article 40.3.2). The exclusion ofdefamation actions from the dis-trict court where procedures areless cumbersome and costs con-siderably less than in the highercourts would also seem to be con-stitutionally questionable.

There must also be doubt thatthe present laws on defamationactually do ‘protect as best (theState) may’ and ‘vindicate’ thegood name of every citizen. Apartfrom the ‘chilling effect’ of thedefamation laws, the best they dois to compensate citizens forunjust attacks on their reputationsand only to that questionabledegree is there vindication.

Privacy is protected onlyobliquely in the Irish legal system,through Article 40.3.1 of theConstitution under one of theunspecified rights. There is no leg-islative basis for the protection of

The media and the law

Vincent Browne is a columnist with the Irish Times and the Sunday Times,and he presents a current affairs discussion programme on week nights on

RTE Radio One. He is also a final year student at the Kings Inns

the right to privacy and that,arguably, could be the cause of anaction against the State on thegrounds that Article 40.3.1requires the State to ‘defend andvindicate the personal rights of thecitizen’, subject only to the quali-fication ‘as far as practicable’.

As for the libel laws them-selves, there are several problems.It is not exactly clear what consti-tutes defamation: for instance, isthe test that one’s reputation hasbeen damaged in the eyes of ‘rightthinking people’ (and, if so, whoare ‘right thinking people’?) or inthe eyes of the public at large?There is even a lack of clarity overwhat constitutes defamationbecause even mild ridicule hasbeen held to be defamatory.

The libel laws also undulyrestrict the media from reportingand commenting on public issues,thereby keeping out of the publicdomain information that the pub-lic needs to make informed deci-

sions as self-governing partici-pants in a republican democracy.

Under the Constitution (Article15. 12-13), TDs and senators haveabsolute privilege for anythingsaid by them in the Houses of theOireachtas and anything pub-lished by these Houses. That par-liamentary privilege, which hadits foundation in common law, isdesigned to ensure the unfettereddiscussion of public issues.Recently, the Oireachtas hasenacted legislation affording priv-ilege to other participants inOireachtas enquiries.

Given that background, it is notclear why the Oireachtas refusesto allow a lesser privilege – quali-fied privilege – to the general pub-lic for the free discussion of pub-lic affairs.

Indeed, arguably, in spite of theheavily qualified guarantees ofpress freedom, under Article40.6.1.1 of the Constitution thereis a constitutional entitlement to

qualified privilege. In his bookIrish law on defamation, MarcMcDonald writes: ‘If the USSupreme Court could (in the caseNew York Times v Sullivan) con-sider that the importance of freespeech and a free press, in ademocracy, required the recogni-tion of a constitutional privilegefor the media against liability indefamation ... It can be suggestedthat our Constitution, too, recog-nises a privileged occasion whenthe media publishes on a matter ofpublic concern involving politi-cians, public officials or publicfigures’ (page 168). There is norealistic prospect of legislativechange on defamation, notwith-standing the recommendations ofthe Law Reform Commission.Change can come about onlythrough judicial intervention.

Already – and this appears tobe largely unknown to somelawyers who advise the media –the High Court and the SupremeCourt have effected hugely signif-icant changes to the rules govern-ing sub judice and contempt ofcourt (notably in two cases:Desmond v Glackin [1993 3IR 1]and a 1994 Supreme Court case‘Z’ v the Director of PublicProsecutions).

Given an appropriate case, it islikely that the Supreme Courtwould intervene to clarify the lawand, conceivably, admonish theOireachtas for its failure to insti-tute the legislative enactments toproperly protect and vindicate therights of the citizen.

LETTERS

G

NEWSNEWS


BRIEFLY

Solicitors Financial Serviceshas reached agreement with

stockbrokers FEXCO to provide anew cut-price valuation andshare-dealing service for solici-tors. The valuation serviceincludes ad hoc valuations or pro-bate valuations, and FEXCO

WillAid 1997, the charityfund-raising initiative,

kicks off with a launch party atthe Law Society’s Blackhall Placepremises on Monday 10 February.During the campaign, now in itsthird year, solicitors are asked towaive their fees and to make willsfor WillAid participants who, inturn, will make a recommendeddonation of £40 for a single willand £60 for matching wills.

WillAid 1997 runs from 10-24

Recent Revenue publicationsThe Revenue has just issueda useful set of leaflets as aguide to those setting upand running small busi-nesses.

They cover such areas asstarting in business, VAT forsmall businesses, PAYE, PRSIfor small employers, and Taxreliefs. For further informa-tion, contact the RevenueForms & Leaflets Service on(tel) 01 8780100.

New CAT bookThe Law Society has pub-lished a new book on capitalacquisitions tax. The book,edited by solicitor BrianBohan, tax director withErnst & Young, is calledCapital acquisitions tax con-solidation and costs £32.50plus £3 p&p (DX members£1). Copies are availablefrom the Law Society,Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

Lay watchdog for Bar CouncilThe UK Bar Council hasappointed a Major Generalin the British army as its layComplaints Commissioner.General Michael Scott willtake up the stg£60,000 postin April, when the new sys-tem comes into force. AsComplaints Commissioner,he will look into all com-plaints against barristerslodged with the Bar Council.

New share-dealing servicefor members

Solicitors asked to waivefees for charity

Anew user’s guide to theMaternity Protection Act,

1994 has been launched by theCoolock Community Law Centreand the Free Legal AdviceCentres. The Maternity rightshandbook outlines the forms ofleave available, gives sample let-ters of notifications that a womanis required to provide to heremployer as well as basic detailsof social welcome entitlementsand qualifications. Further infor-mation about the booklet can beobtained from Paul Joyce atFLAC (tel: 679 4239) or DaveEllis at the CCLC (tel: 847 7804).

Encyclopaedia Britannica is offering Law Society members a special15% group discount rate on its new Britannica CD-ROM ency-

clopaedia and on its 32-volume print edition. Further information on theoffer can be obtained from Neasa McCarthy on 01 474 4477.

Maternityrights

handbooklaunched

Encylopaedia reader offer

Although no officialannouncement has been

made about it, shortly beforeChristmas the Minister forJustice, Nora Owen, set up aworking group with the followingterms of reference: ‘to considerand make recommendations to theMinister for Justice on the ques-tion of qualifications for appoint-ment as judges of the High andSupreme Courts’.

The working group has alreadymet twice and a third meeting isscheduled near the end ofFebruary.

In December 1995, theMinister gave an undertaking tothe Dail Committee onLegislation and Security that shewould establish such a workinggroup The move followed theDail Committee’s unanimouscross-party support for TD AlanShatter’s amendment to theCourts and Court Officers Billwhich would have made solicitorseligible for direct appointment tothe High Court and SupremeCourt in addition to the CircuitCourt. At the time, the LawSociety’s Director General KenMurphy described it as ‘part of a

New working group may leadto more solicitor judges

The new working group ischaired by Dr Colm O hEocha,former President of UCG, and theother members are: (Law Societynominees) Ken Murphy, DirectorGeneral, Geraldine Clarke, ErnestCantillon; (Bar Councilnominees) Garrett Cooney SC,Mary Finlay SC, TurloughO’Donnell BL; Tom O’Malley(Law Faculty UCG); WilliamFagan (Director of ConsumerAffairs); Pat Massey(Competition Authority); DrValerie Richardson (Dept ofSocial Policy ad Social Work,UCD); Tom Quigley (retired,Dept of Justice); Edith Wynne;and Kevin Condon (Dept ofJustice), who will act as secretary.

Ken Murphy: ‘Open access’

political compromise’ and regret-ted the Government was only pre-pared to partly open access to thebench for solicitors.

promises a guaranteed turnaroundtime. The dealing service coversthe sale and purchase of Irish andUK equities.

Further information on the newservice is available on (tel) 016623758 or by contacting FEXCOat 12 Ely Place, Dublin 2.

February, and the initiative isendorsed by the Law Society. Thefour charities set to benefit fromthe scheme are Actionaid, Gorta,Oxfam and Rehab. Local launcheswill be held in Cork on Wednes-day 12 February and in Galway on14 February.


NEWSNEWS

BRIEFLYBlue Cross issues legacy packThe Blue Cross, the Dublin-based animal welfare soci-ety, has issued a new legacyinformation pack with thedual aims of getting peopleto make wills and to leave abequest to the charity. Theinformation pack can beobtained from the BlueCross office at 8 DartmouthTerrace, Ranelagh, Dublin 6(01 497 1709).

BenevolentAssociation AGMNotice is hereby given thatthe 133rd annual generalmeeting of the Solicitors’Benevolent Association willbe held at the Law Society,Blackhall Place, Dublin 7, onFriday 18 April 1997 at 12noon: to consider the annu-al report and accounts forthe year ended 30 Nov-ember 1996; to elect direc-tors; and to deal with othermatters appropriate to ageneral meeting.

Medical insurance discounts for membersBUPA, the British healthinsurer which recentlyentered the Irish health mar-ket, is offering solicitors andtheir staff a group discountof approximately 10%. VHIhas been offering a 10% dis-count to members for anumber of years. Furtherinformation about theschemes can be obtainedfrom: BUPA Ireland, 12Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2;and VHI, Group Scheme467/2763, VHI House, LowerAbbey Street, Dublin 1.

New regulations barring solici-tors from acting for both the

builder and purchaser of newhouses were signed by thePresident on 29 January 1997.The new rules mean that, from 1April 1997, any solicitor actingfor both parties will be guilty ofmisconduct.

The Society’s tough line is theresult of growing concern that thepractice of acting for both clientswas becoming too widespreadand might lead to a conflict ofinterest.

Commenting on the new regu-lations, Law Society PresidentFrank Daly described the move asboth necessary and desirable. ‘TheSociety has always made it clearthat acting for both builders and

Over recent months a num-ber of solicitors’ offices havebeen visited by members ofthe Garda Siochana, who areconducting investigationspursuant to various powersconferred by the recent‘anti-crime’ legislation.

The Law Society is anxiousto determine the nature andextent of these visits, theexact legislative powersbeing invoked and the out-come of the visits. TheSociety will then be in a posi-tion to assess the full impli-cations of the powers beinginvoked and the legal andprofessional obligations ofmembers in the particularcircumstances.

Any member of the pro-fession who has been, or is,visited by a member of theGarda Siochana is asked tocontact either Ken Murphyor Mary Keane at the Societyon a confidential basis.

At its December meeting, theLaw Society Council

appointed PJ Connolly and MaryKeane as Deputy DirectorsGeneral. The proposal stems fromthe Report of the Review WorkingGroup which was approved by themembership in March 1996. Inthe absence of the DirectorGeneral, PJ Connolly willdeputise in relation to matters

New rules bar solicitors fromacting for builder and buyer

purchasers flew in the face of bestpractice, even if it might save theclients some money’, he said.‘The risk of a conflict of interestwas just too great’.

The Solicitors (Practice, Con-duct and Discipline) Regulations,1997 come into force from 1April 1997. Section 4 of the regu-lations states that: A solicitorshall not act for both vendor andpurchaser in the sale and pur-chase for value of a newly con-structed residential unit or resi-dential unit in course of construc-tion, if the vendor is the builder ofthat unit, or is associated with thebuilder of that unit’.

The full text of the StatutoryInstrument will be published inthe next issue of the Gazette. Inthe meantime, anyone seekingfurther information about the newregulations should contactTherese Clarke at the Law Societyon 671 0711.

Garda visitsto solicitors’

offices

Deputy Directors General

arising in the regulatory/profes-sional practice areas of theSociety’s activities, while MaryKeane will deputise in relation tomatters arising in all other areas ofthe Society’s activities.

PJ Connolly will continue toact as Registrar of Solicitors andDirector of Professional Practice.Mary Keane has also beenappointed Director of Policy.

PJ ConnollyMary Keane

Compensation Fund payouts

The following claim amounts were admitted by the CompensationFund Committee and approved for payment by the Council at its

meeting in January 1997: Dermot Kavanagh, 2 Mary Street, New Ross,Co Wexford – £275; Francis G Costello, 51 Donnybrook Road, Donny-brook, Dublin 4 – £12,775.

Frank Daly: ‘The risk of conflict ofinterest was just too great’

PHO

TO:

FIO

NÁ

N O

’CO

NN

ELL


NEWS ANALYSISNEWS ANALYSIS

The higher rates of duty (7%,8% and 9%) apply to residen-

tial property and also to part resi-dential property where the valueof the residential element exceeds£150,000. ‘Residential’ does notnecessarily mean ‘luxury’: con-veyances on sale and gifts of prop-erty let in flats, bed and breakfasts,residential nursing homes etc areall capable of attracting the higherrates.

The 6% rate continues to applyto conveyances on sale of residen-tial property where the contractwas executed on or before 23January 1997 and the conveyancehas been executed by 31 March. Indealing with conveyances such asthese, solicitors should consider

either retaining the contract withthe title deeds or having the con-veyance on sale adjudicated toconfirm due stamping. This willavoid serious problems in thefuture.

Solicitors acting for clientswith contracts such as theseshould take note of the disadvan-tageous position of their clients.Their clients may be literallyexposed to blackmail because, ifthe vendors delay closing beyond31 March, the client will have nooption but to pay the higher rate.This has serious implicationswhere there is an objection to thetitle or where some other issuerelating to the contract is not inorder.

The provisions set out in theGuidance note for dealing withmixed property and other property

are poorly thought out and arebound to result in confusion. Therating test is crude, inaccurate andfurthermore is not authorised bythe Financial Resolution. Thereare many reasons why a buildingwhich has a legitimate use fornon-residential purposes may notbe recorded as such in the ratebooks for the previous year.

Solicitors acting for vendors ofmixed property will now have toadvise their clients on certificatesof value which the vendors mustsupply to the Revenue under theFinancial Resolution. This a newand unwelcome development, par-ticularly as valuations of the kindrequired will in many cases benotoriously difficult to arrive at.

Capital acquisitions tax (CAT)Business relief. The relief in respect of business property trans-ferred by gift or inheritance is being increased from 75% to 90%for all qualifying assets, provided these assets are retained in thebusiness for a period of ten years or more after the transfer. Thischange will take effect from 23 January 1997.

Agricultural relief. The relief in respect of agricultural land,buildings, livestock and machinery transferred by gift or inheri-tance is also being increased from 75% to 90% for all qualifyingassets, provided these assets are retained in the business for aperiod of ten years or more after the transfer. These changes willtake effect from 23 January 1997.

Capital gains tax (CGT)Reduced rate of CGT. The lower rate of CGT applying to gainsrealised by individuals on the disposal of ordinary shares in cer-tain small and medium-sized trading companies or their holdingcompanies is being reduced from 27% to 26% with effect from 6April 1997. In order to qualify, shares must be unquoted at thedate of acquisition, held for at least three years before disposaland they must be held in an Irish trading company with a marketvalue not exceeding £25 million at the date of acquisition of theshares.

Capital gains tax/Corporation taxLife assurance companies. The special tax rate for investment inlife assurance companies, unit trusts and UCITS (Undertaking for

Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) is being reducedfrom 27% to 26% as a result of the reduction in the standard rateof income tax. The change will take effect from 6 April 1997.

Stamp dutiesNew rates. New houses or apartments with a floor area of 125square metres or less are exempt from stamp duty. New housesor apartments with a floor area in excess of this are only subjectto stamp duty on the greater of the site value and the construc-tion costs. For a large new house or apartment to be liable tothese new rates of stamp duty, the residential property wouldhave to have a site value in excess of £150,000 or an aggregatevalue in excess of £600,000.

Mixed property. These new rates only apply to residentialproperty. With regard to a mixed property, that is, a propertywhich has both a residential and a non-residential element, onlythat part of the property which is residential will be liable to thenew rates. For a mixed property to be liable to the new rates, theresidential element of that property would have to be valued inexcess of £150,000. The apportionment of the considerationbetween the residential and non-residential parts will be on a‘just and reasonable’ basis.

These new rates will apply to the transfer of residential prop-erty on or after 23 January 1997, subject to certain transitionalarrangements. For contracts signed on or before Budget day, theexisting rate of duty will apply provided that the conveyance ortransfer is executed before 1 April 1997.

Stamp duty and the Budget

Minister for Finance Ruairí Quinn:Poorly thought-out provisions?

The recent Budget increases in stamp duty are set out in the Revenue Guidance

note included as an insert in this month’s issue. Here, the Society’s TaxationCommittee looks at some of the implications of that change

BUDGET 1997 CAT AND CGT CHANGES

The myth othe paperless o


The day of the Ludditelawyer is drawing to aclose. Every solicitor now

recognises that, for better orworse, new technology is here tostay. But the acceptance ratevaries considerably from firm tofirm.

The smaller ones are oftenfaced with severe financial andmanagerial constraints. Managingpartners are fully stretched as it is.There is a strong temptation to putoff any move to a networkedoffice, with a terminal on everyemployee’s desk.

For larger firms there are dif-ferent problems in making the transition to the state-of-the-art office. The‘supertanker’ organisations tend to take a long time to alter their course,and within these firms there tend to be many different departments anddifferent computer systems. Changes are often introduced in a piecemealfashion. Sheer size can lead to unwieldiness. But mistakes in selecting asystem, when they occur, can be enormous.

Light years behind the United StatesFirms in Britain and Ireland, at least until recently, have been light yearsbehind the United States, where newly-qualified lawyers are expected tohave a good working knowledge of computing. But now firms here arestarting to invest heavily in sophisticated practice management systemsdesigned to make financial, marketing and management informationavailable to everybody working in the firm.

In Britain, over 100 firms have joined forces to negotiate discountsfrom software providers. And firms on both sides of the Irish sea havejumped on the Internet bandwagon, using the new service (at least ini-tially) for advertising purposes. But some media-wise law firms have

gone further and are providing on-line ‘hot news’ pages for the generalpublic over the Internet.

The key changes, however, are taking place within the office as firmsinstall new networked desk-top systems allowing all fee-earners and sup-port staff to access practice information on a common basis. Where afirm has more than one office, these offices or branches are also beinglinked.

In Manchester, one practice employing 200 people spent £500,000 onthe installation of a pentium-based desk-top PC system for all its staff. Inthis case, fee-earners were given two and a half days’ training while sup-port staff were given four days. Plans to install an ‘Intranet’ internal elec-tronic bulletin board are well underway.

Obviously, firms would be well advised to make full use of theirinvestment in the available new technology. With this in mind, newassessment programmes have been developed to help firms measure hownew systems perform or, rather, the performance of staff in getting themost out of those new systems.

The pace of change within law firms is being dictated in large part bythe marketplace. The lawyer’s ability to access vital facts at speed isbecoming ever-more important as commercial clients, in particular,become more demanding and as cases become more complex. Greatswathes of information on areas as diverse as European law and clinicalpractice are now available on disk or CD. During the Beef Tribunal, forexample, the current Attorney General, Dermot Gleeson, then acting ascounsel for the Goodman Group, stole a march on the competition bymeans of innovative information retrieval techniques, such as CD-ROM.

Frank Lanigan is a partner in a medium-sized firm based in Carlow,which employs six solicitors. The firm also has two solicitors in itsDublin office. Lanigan, a member of the Law Society’s TechnologyCommittee, says he first saw the potential of computers back in 1980.Having installed his first equipment, he began to act for legal IT special-ists Star Computers. In 1988, he bought out his former client and nowwears two hats, as lawyer and as a distributor of computer systems. Since1989, there has been a screen on every desk in his law firm, and the sys-tem is now fully integrated. ‘As yet, we are still one of the few firms in

The myth othe paperless o

Information technology has revolutionised the way we do business, and each new

development is greeted as another step towards the mythical paperless office. But

how realistic is this? And how far behind other professions are solicitors?

Kyran FitzGerald reports on how solicitors are getting to grips with IT

of office


COVER STORYCOVER STORY

this position’, he says. Lanigan believes that medium-sized firms oftenfind it easier to adapt to new technology than their larger counterparts.

The new networked system has allowed accurate information to movefreely through the organisation, increasing the scope for delegating legalwork to non-qualified staff. ‘People spend less time scurrying aroundlooking for details’, says Lanigan.

The firm is also now much leaner. Back in 1988, there were two mem-bers of support staff for every fee-earner. This ratio has now beenreversed.

Danger of wasteful expenditureNetworking evens out the gaps in productivity between staff members,though many solicitors have been slow to adapt. According to Lanigan,‘Some solicitors still think that the computer is a glorified typewriter’.

Paul Errity works as systems manager with McCann FitzGerald, alarge firm by any standards. Implementing change in such an organisa-tion requires careful planning and co-ordination. In Errity’s opinion,problems arise where a client suggests that a particular system should beinstalled to facilitate communication between the law firm and thatclient. This can lead to a particular department investing in a systemwithout looking at the overall plan, increasing the danger of wastefulexpenditure.

While no single client should be allowed to dictate a firm’s investmentstrategy, clearly investments in technology are being made in response toclient demand. McCanns has invested in the new pentium PCs whichhave been on the market for the past couple of years. This has meanthuge improvements in productivity, with file information now accessiblealmost instantly. The pentium PC also allows access to a much widerrange of applications than was possible previously.

The larger firms have also been investing heavily in sophisticatedresearch tools in the form of CD-ROM disks. The financial demands canbe considerable – for example, upgrading 220 personal computers willcost in excess of £200,000 – but the benefits are enormous.

Apart from the ability to respond much more rapidly to inquiries fromclients, there are important internal benefits. New back-office accounting

of office

WHO IS BEHIND LAWLINK?In late 1994 IFG Group plc acquired a majority shareholding inLawLink and, with the partnership of the Law Society TechnologyCommittee, the original objective has now come to fruition with thelaunch of LawLink ‘96 last April by the Minister for Justice, NoraOwen.

WHAT CAN THE LAWLINK ‘96 SERVICE PROVIDE FOR MY PRACTICE?The LawLink ‘96 service is an essential cost saving tool for everyoffice that deals in legal issues.

The following core elements of the LawLink ‘96 service are all eas-ily accessible from the computer on your desktop:

COMPANY SEARCHESn THE COMPANIES’ OFFICE DIRECTLawLink ‘96 allows you direct access to the Companies’ Office pro-viding you with the facility of name searching and access to compa-ny folios.n COMPANY FORMATIONS INTERNATIONALThe second company search facility accessible though LawLink ‘96 isthe comprehensive CFI database. This database ‘instantly’ providesyou with all of what the Companies’ Office can offer, including,Accounts Information, Charges, Directors, etc.n THE LAND REGISTRYAs with the Companies’ Office, you can search the Dublin LandRegistry files from your personal computer. Both name searches andfolio number searches can be sought simply.n THE LEGAL DIARYWith the co-operation of Mount Salus Press (the printers of thepaper Legal Diary), LawLink ‘96 facilitates sending the Legal Diarydirectly to your computer the evening before publication.Comprehensive searching facilities are available allowing you to printthe section you especially require.n THE IRISH TRADE PROTECTION ASSOCIATIONThis unique service allows you to obtain all personal and companyjudgments going back 15 years, instantly. This service is easy toaccess and provides a useful tool at the touch of a button.

SECUREMAIL — THE ULTIMATE IN DOCUMENTEXCHANGE FROM LAWLINKThis service utilises the most up to date technology and is specifi-cally designed for the legal community. It is intended that SecureMailwill be the standard for electronic transfer of files and documentsamongst the legal profession. SecureMail is already established in alarge number of practices in Ireland.

WHY SECUREMAIL?Initially e-mail was to join the legal profession with the rest of theworld. No faxing, no posting, no couriers — and, better still, nowaiting! E-mail would dramatically cut communication costs and freeup valuable time.

Unfortunately for the legal profession, the highly confidentialnature of the legal documents and concerns about the security of e-mail and the different types of e-mail meant that lawyers could notadopt this new technology. A secure e-mail system was required,which would allow lawyers to not only communicate securely with-in the legal world, but would also give them access to other e-mailusers around the globe.

THE SECUREMAIL SOLUTIONn SECURE — Unlike ordinary e-mail, SecureMail cannot beaccessed externally, so you can have total confidence that docu-ments which are confidential remain exactly that. SecureMail alsotransparently attaches to X400 protocols, the ISO approved plat-form that is used by the Department of Social Welfare for the elec-tronic payments system nationwide.n FAST — SecureMail sends documents directly from computer tocomputer. In the legal profession, where documents are circulatingconstantly, this can assist greatly in meeting deadlinesn DETAILED ITEMISED BILLING — SecureMail provides detaileditemised billing for each and every secure transaction. This means thatSecureMail transaction executed on behalf of a client can be clearlyidentified and the costs passed back to the appropriate account.n SAVES TIME AND CUTS COSTS — By eliminating the need forpaper, printing, postage, faxing and couriers, SecureMail saves signifi-cant time and reduces both communication and administration costs.

LawLink Limited is committed through its ongoing development programme to continuously enhance the existing benefits of the system

LawLink Limited can be contacted at: 19 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2. Tel: 6766222, Fax: 6762616, e-Mail: [email protected]

LAWLINK IS A PART OF THE IFG GROUP

Welcome to the world of

LawLink & SecureMailLawLink provides you with the most up to date services and information straight to your desktop. It also provides the most modern and secure method of sending documents and

files around the world. And the best part is that it’s easy!

WHAT IS LAWLINK?LawLink Limited was established by the Technology Committee of the Law Society to research and develop a nationwide communica-

tions service for the legal profession and also set up electronic access to Government and other relevant private databases.


COVER STORY

systems mean that much more managementinformation is now available and the job ofmaking Revenue returns for payments to thirdparties (such as barristers) is much easier.

Most managing partners are now willing toembrace new technology, but they do not haveto be financially strangled in the process.Former Law Society President, Ray Monahan,runs a practice in Sligo town. There are fourpartners in the firm, with a total staff of 15. Thefirm has replaced its system in the past sixmonths, buying in the latest Windows 95 soft-ware. Monahan estimates that the firm has spentbetween £30,000 and £40,000 in the process.

For him, investment is an on-going affair. ‘We had to throw out our oldWang system’, he says. ‘Computers have a shelf-life of around five years’.

Even small to medium-sized firms find themselves under pressurefrom clients. ‘The speed of service required has increased greatly.Lawyers are expected to have a databank of precedents and to churn outdocuments quickly’.

Using technology to control costs is also vital, with competition con-tinually pushing down fees. But Tallaght-based litigation specialist,Brian O’Reilly, warns against a precipitate rush into new investments.‘We were one of the first firms to introduce a computerised accounts sys-tem, but three years ago we got rid of it and went back to a manual sys-tem’. The firm’s new book-keeper did not like the system.

‘We will buy in a new computerised accounts system when our book-keeper finds one with which he is completely satisfied. There are goodsystems out there, but they are very expensive. We ultimately plan tohave a computer on every desk when voice recognition technology hasbeen perfected’, O’Reilly says.

What he is keen to avoid is a piecemeal approach to investment. ‘Fullcomputerisation brings many benefits, but we have decided that the ben-efits available are not yet such as to justify the disruption to the practicethat would come in the transition period. It is something we are keepingunder constant review. In business, if you see a bandwagon coming, it isalready too late’.

Voice recognition softwareO’Reilly estimates that the move to a fully networked system will costsomewhere between £20,000 and £25,000, with the cost in lost manage-ment time being even greater. Eventually, he believes, voice recognitionwill be a development of huge importance to solicitors. One alreadyinvaluable technology is the mobile phone which, he says, has trans-formed his business. It has allowed him and his colleagues to remain pro-ductive while stuck down in court or in traffic.

As chairman of the Law Society’s Technology Committee, Mullingar-based solicitor John Shaw is facing into the same process of transition ashis Tallaght colleague. Shaw works in a four-solicitor firm along with hisfather. ‘We are looking to upgrade from our basic word-processing pack-age to electronic mail. We are looking at a budget of between £30,000and £40,000’.

Up to now, he says, the legal profession has been relatively slow toadapt to the computer age. ‘Accountancy lends itself to computerisation,whereas words are our trade. While almost all firms now use word-

processors, computerised accounts systems arenot yet widespread among smaller practicesfor reasons of cost’. But things are set tochange quickly.

‘Electronic mail, allied to the growth of theInternet, will be one area of big growth overthe next 12 to 18 months’, he says. Securityfears have acted as a deterrent, but encrypted,secure and relatively hacker-free programs arenow coming on the market.

Some years ago the Law Society linked upwith the IFG Group to develop the LawLinkservice. Originally designed as a tool foraccessing information in the Land Registry

and the Companies Office, it is now being used as an electronic mailingservice. Currently, there are 60 to 70 users.

Developing a momentumThe fee system is being restructured with the aim of expanding the user-base. As this grows, electronic mail should develop a momentum of itsown, but machines will have to be upgraded and possibly replaced toaccommodate the e-mail package.

John Shaw predicts, however, that e-mail will take off among lawyersjust as the fax machine did back in the early 1980s. ‘A huge amount ofwork on documents, such as trial pleadings, will be done from screen toscreen. Within 18 months, the vast majority of solicitors and barristerswill have an e-mail connection’.

As the various markets grow, the product cost is coming down. Youcan now get a good pentium PC for under £1,000 while an e-mail pack-age costs around £120. A link-up to an Internet provider can cost as littleas £10 to £12 a month.

The field of research is also developing fast. The Law Society isinvesting heavily in computerisation in its library. The plan is to have thelibrary service available on-line within two to three years, opening upnew opportunities to solicitors in smaller practices who don’t have thefunds to invest in expensive CD-ROM libraries of their own.

But where is all of this leading the profession? The development ofvoice recognition systems, for example, have enormous implications forsupport staff. Traditional secretarial roles are being made redundant.Secretaries will increasingly act as support staff. And job shedding seemsto be inevitable as cost pressures grow.

Lawyers as freelance consultants?In the future, lawyers may increasingly operate out of remote work sta-tions, acting as freelance consultants and developing their own businessin a proactive way. This could involve alerting clients to potential legalpitfalls ahead rather than waiting for clients to approach them when prob-lems have developed. And within traditional law firms, lawyers may tendto work more closely in hunting teams that transcend traditional legaldepartmental structures.

Overall, it may become more difficult to maintain traditional profes-sional standards and etiquette in what is shaping up to be a freewheelingenvironment.

Kyran FitzGerald is a freelance journalist.

G

Private detectives mustthink they live in the wild

west. Get them talkingabout their work and

they’ll start to tell youabout all the ‘cowboys’

they know. So who are theblack hats and who are

the seventh cavalry? Conal O’Boyle reports


PRACTICEPRACTICE

‘The fastest growing industry in theworld is information gathering’, saysLiam Brady. ‘It’s not as old as prosti-

tution, but it’s bigger’.Brady has been a private detective for 23

years and has seen the investigations businessbecome big business. ‘It’s an industry just likeany other’, he says. ‘It has its cowboy element;it has gangsters in it; it has people ripping peo-ple off. It’s like the building industry or anyother industry’.

That may be just a little disingenuous: afterall, builders don’t usually bug your office orburst into your hotel room with a camera. Butthe bigger question is whether investigators canbe regulated like any other industry, becausepeople who use detective agencies – such assolicitors – need to be able to tell the good fromthe bad, and the downright ugly. Brady says theanswer is a licensing system for investigators.

Several years ago he set up the EuropeanFederation of Professional Investigators. It hasseven members, hand-picked by himself.‘We’ve been accused of being elitist’, he says,

Watching the

detectives

Watching the

detectives‘and that’s what we are, because it is the elite ofthe business’.

In the absence of government regulation, heregards the federation as a kind of privatelicensing authority. ‘We have to license our-selves in the same way as they probably do inFrance and one or two other countries. If youare an accepted member – and it’s extremelydifficult to get in – you have to abide by therules and be governed by the three or four mem-bers who deal with complaints’. The federa-tion’s code of conduct, says Brady, amounts tothe simple rule that ‘you don’t rip people off’.

Years ago, as part of the now-defunctAssociation of Irish Detectives, he lobbied TDsand government ministers to introduce someform of licensing arrangement, but the propos-al fell on deaf ears. He puts this down to ‘thecost of changing legislation’. In an ideal world,he would like to see a three to five-year appren-ticeship for private eyes and a system of properqualifications, but he concedes: ‘It will neverhappen – not in my lifetime’.

In the 1980s, Brady lectured on a three-year

‘T


diploma course called Private investigation andthe law. One of the graduates of that course,Audrey Christie, now runs her own agency,Global Investigations. Global is one of theseven member firms of Brady’s federation, andChristie also believes that licensing is the wayforward for the industry.

Her advice to those choosing an investigatoris to talk to them. ‘There is no better way offinding out whether somebody is bright, intelli-gent, articulate and sympathetic to your case’,she says. ‘If you are not genuine, it comesacross, and no-one is going to hand over moneyto someone to carry out an investigation withoutreally trusting them’.

Much of Christie’s work is in the matrimoni-al area, where she gets referrals from a numberof solicitors. ‘Family law solicitors will refertheir clients to me quite regularly. A lot of thesecases have to do with maintenance, where onespouse is claiming maintenance against theother, or with gaining information about thespouse’s assets. That’s a growing area of familylaw where clients are being referred to privateinvestigators’.

She agrees that investigators have a poorimage, but reckons this might be changing. ‘Isee myself as a highly professional person’, shesays, ‘and I never break the law to get informa-tion. I don’t enter apartments or private proper-ty; it’s not necessary’.

She is not one of the old school who believedthat breaking into a hotel bedroom to photo-graph a couple in flagrante was proper order.‘To me that is guttersnipe investigation and,more importantly, it’s not necessary and it’s

damaging to the profession as a whole. If I seetwo people in a hotel bar and they go up to aroom, that’s more than enough evidence forme’.

On the question of legality, Liam Brady takesa different view: ‘If I’m chasing paedophiles,for example, I’ll do anything. There is no lawthat will stop me. I’ll tap phones, break andenter, anything’. And he accepts that attitudeslike this would make government regulationimpossible.

‘The grey areas will always be there’, headds. ‘Well, they have to be’.

Brady strongly advises anyone thinking ofhiring a private detective to ‘at least speak to asolicitor or go to the Garda Crime PreventionBureau and try to get one recommended to you.Try to get a qualified investigator, someone witha proven track record’.

No official positionA Garda spokesman said that they had no officialposition on the use of private investigators andwould not normally recommend them to anyone.And as far as regulating the industry was con-cerned, ‘that’s up to the legislators, not us’.

Like many private investigators, Derek Nallyis an ex-garda who took early retirement. He setup his agency, International InvestigationsIreland, ten years ago when he saw an openingat the upper end of the market. He, too, believesthat the mark of a good agency is its associationwith a professional organisation, though in hiscase it is the Council of InternationalInvestigators, based in the United States.Members of the council must abide by its Code

of ethics which, among other things, tells themthey must: ● Conduct all their investigations ‘within the

bounds of legality, morality and professionalethics’

● Co-operate with ‘all recognised and respon-sible law enforcement and governmentalagencies in matters within the realm of theirjurisdiction’, and

● Counsel their clients against ‘any illegal orunethical course of action’.

Like Brady and Christie, Nally is scathing aboutthe rogue elements in the business. ‘There is alot of cowboyism associated with the industry.There are people out there who have criminalrecords and who are engaged in activities thatare certainly less than legal or ethical’.

He suggests that anyone considering using adetective agency for the first time should lookfor the following things: track record in busi-ness; professional indemnity insurance; tax cer-tificates; and fee structure.

Many of Nally’s bigger clients, such as semi-state bodies, are starting to insist on profession-al indemnity insurance when they put work outto tender. ‘As part of the tender, you have to sendin a copy of your professional indemnity insur-ance and a copy of your employee liability insur-ance’, he says. ‘It’s tightening up considerably atgovernment and semi-state level, and that’s nowmoving down the line to corporate level’.

And it’s at the corporate level where theinvestigations business is really booming. ‘Fiveyears ago, 70-80% of our business would bedevoted to insurance investigation’, says Nally.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Telephone taps: (left) monitor

for digital system,price £125;

(right) single linemonitor, £350

Recording briefcase, activated by position ofhandle, price £495

Double-socket mains adaptor, constant transmission, also functions

as a socket, price £450


PRACTICEPRACTICE

‘Now we do about 20% insurance work and 80%corporate work, such as counter-surveillance’.

Audrey Christie agrees. ‘Corporate fraudwould be the growing area at the minute’.

According to the staff in PegasusCommunications’ spy-shop near Dublin Castle,90% of the customers are businessmen. Pegasusspecialises in video surveillance equipment andelectronic recording devices – or ‘bugs’ if youwant to get technical about it. Apart from sell-ing you the hardware to bug your competitors,Tom Pollard and his colleagues will carry out asweep of your premises to make sure that theopposition isn’t doing the same to you. In thespy business, it seems, you can have your cakeand eat it.

‘The most important thing to companiesthese days is information’, says Pollard. ‘A lotof people are making money out of sellinginformation elsewhere’.

The boom in corporate crime has meant goodbusiness for the spy-shop. ‘There are millionsgoing missing in the financial area. When cus-tomers come in here, they’re fed up. They’vetried everything else and this is the last resort.People are sick of being ripped off’.

One industry insider cites the takeover of ahigh profile institution. ‘I know that in this par-ticular case, the best equipment was used to lis-ten to the boardroom meetings and tap the

phones. The group behind the takeover knewexactly what the bottom-line was going to be sothey went in and offered a couple of grandabove what the board would accept. They hadall the information’. When there’s big money atstake, he adds, solicitors should advise theirclients to have an electronic sweep done beforean important meeting.

If corporate crime and industrial espionagecontinue to grow as predicted, detective agen-cies may come to be regarded as just anotherbusiness tool. In the meantime, the investiga-

tions industry is trying to shed its image of darkalleys and dirty raincoats.

‘The hero for me is Veronica Guerin’, saysAudrey Christie. ‘Her bravery, her honesty, herintegrity – she is a role model for me. I thinkshe may even have changed the public percep-tion of private investigators’.

Veronica Guerin may be an admirable rolemodel for the industry but, given the concernsabout cowboy operators, you can’t help think-ing that Roy Rodgers might be a bit moreappropriate. At least, for the moment.

DETECTIVES: DOs AND DON’TsMary Shiels is a legal executive with McCann FitzGerald and has extensive experi-ence in using detectives for debt collection. So how does she know which one tochoose?

‘You will hear about good ones from time to time, but because of the nature ofthe work they are here today and gone tomorrow. I’d be reluctant just to grab oneout of the Golden Pages. It’s usually through word of mouth’.

‘When I am instructing an inquiry agent, I would always tell them not to go abovea certain financial limit because many of them charge by the hour, and that canwork out very expensive. I ask them to contact me if they feel it’s going to exceedthat limit’. As with all services, it is important to observe a few key points:● Try to instruct somebody you have heard good reports about● Agree a delivery date for the report● Always agree the fee in advance● Give as much background information as you already have to avoid duplication.

G

CRIMINAL LEGAL AID REVIEW COMMITTEE.The Minister for Justice, Mrs. Nora Owen, T.D. has established a Committee, under the chairmanship of His HonourJudge John Gerard Buchanan, to review the operation of the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme under the Criminal Justice(Legal Aid) Act, 1962 and to make recommendations as to the manner in which the Scheme might be improved sothat it operates effectively and provides value for money. The terms of reference of the Review Committee alsoinclude, inter alia:

(i) a review of the levels of fees paid to solicitors and barristers, including any claims for changes to theScheme made by the Law Society and the Bar Council in relation to the fees payable under the Scheme.

(ii) an examination of the possibility of introducing an alternative system for providing criminal legal aid,specifically the introduction of a Public Defender Scheme.

(iii) an examination of the experience of the Legal Aid Board in relation to the delivery of the Civil Legal AidScheme.

(iv) a review of the current practices within the Public Service for determining a person’s means with particularreference to proposals being drawn up by the Department of Social Welfare Committee examining thedevelopment of an Integrated Social Service System.

The Review Committee invites submissions from interested groups and individuals on issues relevant to the aboveterms of reference. Submissions, in writing, should reach the Secretary to the Review Committee, at the address below,not later than 21 February, 1997.

Secretary to the Criminal Legal Aid Review Committee Room 429 Department of Justice 72 - 76 St. Stephen’s Green Dublin 2

Any person who wishes to obtain further information or clarification regarding the above may contact the Secretaryto the Committee at the following telephone number:

Phone number: (01) 6028331


No subject has disrupted relations between the medical and legal professions in America more than the issue of medical negligence or, as it is more usually called

over there, medical malpractice – and Ireland seems to be heading the same way.Robert Harley reports on a recent US study that might throw a little light

on this contentious issue

The debate between Brendan Healy andKen Murphy in the August/September1996 issue of the Gazette shows that the

medical negligence debate has reachedIreland. One of the exacerbating factors in thecontroversy has been that both sides haveemployed evidence that can only be describedas anecdotal. The two professions have beenhurling ‘facts’ at each other that would beinadmissible in a court of law and unpublish-able in any respectable medical journal. What

is needed (if not to improve the problem, atleast to improve the quality of the debate) isempirical information. A dozen years ago,New York State set out to obtain such empiri-cal information and the result is something thathas become known as the Harvard Report.

In 1985 the Harvard University School ofPublic Health, together with the Harvard LawSchool and the Harvard Medical School,sought funding for a project that would designa model ‘no-fault’ compensation plan for med-


MEDICAL-LEGALMEDICAL-LEGAL

Doctors,lawyers andthe Harvard

Report

Doctors,lawyers andthe Harvard

Reportical negligence. At that time, one of the tradi-tional arguments against a no-fault scheme wasan economic one. This argument was based onthe assumption that, while unintended resultswere common in the health care system, negli-gence caused only a small proportion of those‘adverse events’ that occurred. In the absenceof a true national health scheme, it would be fartoo expensive to attempt to pay for all adverseevents, particularly if consequential damageswere to be included.

The second major argument was based onthe problem of trying to define an ‘adverseevent’. A no-fault scheme for road accidents issimple to design: if you get into a car whole,are involved in an accident and come out lessthan whole, you are due compensation. But, bydefinition, you start medical treatment becauseyou are not whole, or at least do not feel whole.How then can you devise a system that deter-

mines whether the condition of the patient aftermedical intervention results from the interven-tion and, therefore, is compensable, or merelya consequence of the original illness and there-fore not compensable? Would not any suchsystem be as complex and thereby as expensiveas the present system since it would be calledupon to resolve many of the same issues?

The proposers of the Harvard Report wereconvinced that an empirical study would findthat malpractice and adverse events were farless pervasive than the anecdotal evidence sug-gested. Moreover, they were willing to try theirhand at coming up with a scheme for deter-mining what would be compensable and whatwould not. The 1986 New York State legisla-ture, faced with mounting demands from themedical profession for ‘tort reform’, authorisedfunding for the study and the researchers wentto work.

After four years of study, the report wasreleased in January 1990. It comprised over600 pages, including the report, the appendicescontaining the back-up data, and the executivesummary.

The methodologyThe Harvard team, based on advice fromstatisticians and other data specialists, sampledsome 31,000 hospital records from 51 hospitalsof different types scattered across the state. Thepotential value of this study went far beyondNew York State.

New York is in many ways a microcosm ofthe nation as a whole. The state has a popula-tion of 18 million in an area of 50,000 squaremiles. It contains the city of New York with apopulation, exclusive of its suburbs, of eightmillion. It has the city of Buffalo with 360,000people, as well as the city of Yonkers with

250,000. It contains another dozen or so citiesas well as towns, villages and large areas ofsparsely populated farm lands and forests. Thehospitals in the studies included everythingfrom small, private, rural hospitals throughuniversity-based teaching hospitals to largegovernment-owned institutions.

Among other things, the study set out toidentify the incidence of injuries resulting frommedical intervention, which it called ‘adverseevents’, and a determination of the percentageof such events that resulted from the fault ornegligence of the physician or other health careprovider.

‘Intolerable’ level of negligenceA total of 30,121 records were reviewed by ateam of nurses and physicians. From theseexaminations, a total of 1,133 ‘adverse events’were identified; of that group, 280 were judgedto result from negligent care. Extrapolatingthese figures, taking into account the approxi-mately 2,800,000 annual hospital admissionsin New York State, the incidence of ‘adverseevents’ was judged to be 3.7% or a total of98,609. Some 27.6% of those adverse eventswere judged to have been due to negligence.This 27.6% amounted to a finding that therewas a negligently caused adverse event (that isto say, medical malpractice) in 1% of all hos-pital admissions in New York State.

Although the New York State MedicalSociety used this 1% to correctly claim that‘99% of all patient/physician interactions didnot involve physician negligence of any sort’,the fact remains that this 1% amounts to near-ly 28,000 cases of medical negligence eachyear. The Harvard Report also concluded that14% of patients who suffered adverse eventsdied, at least in part as a result of the adverseevent, and that there were at least ‘2,500 casesof permanent, total disability resulting frommedical injury in New York hospitals in 1984’.Further, the report ‘found evidence that med-ical injury contributed at least in part to thedeaths of more than 13,000 patients in thatyear’. More tellingly, it concluded that ‘negli-gent adverse events resulted, overall, in greaterdisability than did non-negligent adverseevents and (negligent events) were associatedwith 51% of all deaths from medical injury’.

The authors of the report found the level ofnegligence to be ‘intolerable’. The reportfound that the risk of sustaining an ‘adverseevent’ increased with age, with persons over65 having twice the chance of sustaining anadverse event than those in the 16-44 agegroup. Moreover, the percentage of adverseevents resulting from negligence increased inelderly patients, and higher rates of adverseevents were found in hospitals that served ahigher proportion of minority (African-

American and Hispanic) patients.The report did find that there were a large

number of cases where the study’s physi-cians/investigators found no negligence, butthe patients had, in fact, brought suit. Withregard to those, the report made no commentbecause, literally, the jury was not in yet.

The tort system as a deterrentThe authors of the report attempted to addressthe deterrent effect, if any, of medical negli-gence litigation on medical care. Theresearchers found this extremely difficult tomeasure. They concluded that there probablywas a significant deterrent effect but that itcould be neither proved nor disproved by theirresearch and that it was within the realms of

Organised medicine and its advocates haveconstantly argued that the prevalence of med-ical negligence litigation has created a prac-tice of ‘defensive medicine’. This is definedas the ordering of otherwise unnecessarydiagnostic testing, not because medicallyindicated but so that any resultant lawsuitmay be more successfully defended.Defensive medicine, they say, has consider-ably raised the already high cost of medicalcare.

To try to find some objective measure ofdefensive medicine, the Harvard Report stud-ied the practises of doctors after they had beensued for malpractice to see whether thisresulted in any alterations in their patterns ofpractice. Their conclusion was: not proved:

‘Although physicians believed they prac-tised medicine defensively, they did notreport long-term changes in their practicepatterns as the result of a specific suit.Thus, it was not clear whether defensivemedicine resulted from the malpracticeenvironment or from other factors such asadvances in the science and technology ofmedicine, changes in societal expectationsas to what constitutes an appropriate levelof care, or changes in the peer revieworganisation, state and hospital require-ments, or a combination of factors’.

So where does that leave us with regard to ano-fault alternative to the tort system? In theend, the Harvard group did propose a no-faultalternative, but in various meetings with con-sumer groups, medical societies and bar asso-ciations around the state, the directors of thestudy explicitly stated that, based on theirfindings, they declined to advocate a no-faultsystem. They merely presented a no-faultproposal as a suggestion since they had beenasked to make such a proposal, but they saidthey had no confidence that it was a systemthat would provide fairer compensation,cover more of the victims, or indeed becheaper.

The Harvard Report is the only seriousattempt to study empirically the issue of med-ical negligence. It concludes that there is med-ical negligence, and that all too frequently itcauses serious injury or death. When the NewYork State Legislature received this reportthat it had spent so much money on, it did notadopt any of the proposed legislation that hadled to the commissioning of the study.

I suggest that the only impact that lawyeradvertising may have is to inform ordinarycitizens that they have a right of redress whenthey or their loved ones find themselves vic-tims of that negligence.

Robert Harley is a New York-based attorney.


MEDICAL-LEGALMEDICAL-LEGAL

G

possibility that there was none. But they didconclude that negligence litigation is likely tobe much more of a deterrent to sub-standardmedical care than any government regulation.

While attempting to measure the possibledeterrent effect, the researchers discoveredsome interesting things about doctors’ percep-tions of malpractice litigation. Among NewYork doctors, the perceived risk of being suedwas approximately three times the actual riskof being sued. The report also stated that‘physicians tended to equate a finding of “neg-ligence” with a judgement of incompetence’.So while they might be willing to admit that alldoctors made ‘mistakes’, physicians wereoften unwilling to label sub-standard care as‘negligent’.

Defensive medicineDoctors’ perceptions were also important inthe area of so-called defensive medicine.

ADVERTISEMENT


‘Our conclusion is that, in a comprehensive scheme, legal aid should be available for all types of civil proceedings. There seems to us to be no logical basis on which any particular case

category should be excluded. The merits of any case and the question of granting legal aidshould be assessed, not by reference to the category to which it belongs, but by reference

to the particular circumstances of the case’.

The Pringle Report (1977)

The recent enactment of the Civil LegalAid Act, 1995 represents a definiteadvance on the previous position. It

places the old Scheme of Civil Legal Aid andAdvice on a statutory footing and in this wayaims to address legal uncertainties in the

was never meant to be a feature of the admin-istrative scheme. However, apart from a smallnumber of amendments, such as the removal ofthe exclusion in debt collection proceedingsand test cases, the substance of the new Act isin effect the same as that of the non-statutoryscheme which dates from 1979 and has its ori-gins in the Airey judgment (2 EHRR 305). Inother words, the 1995 Act makes no real effortto address criticisms of the service which areno less valid today than they were 18 years ago.

The 1995 Act and regulations (SI no 273 of1996) continue to provide that legal aid is

Legal aid is an essential lifeline for those who cannot afford to pay, and the 1995Civil Legal Aid Act was supposed to be the great leap forward for the service.

But is the new service really any better than the old non-statutory scheme? Mary Johnson argues that the lifeline is still as fragile

as it was 18 years ago

fallingshort of the

mark?

fallingshort of the

mark?

LEGAL AIDLEGAL AID

scheme, such as the procedure for applying forlegal aid or appealing against a decision torefuse legal aid, the status of the board or therecovery of costs in certain cases.

In more general terms, it gives the provisionof civil legal aid a degree of permanence which

ADVISORY GROUPON

CRIMINAL LAWAND PROCEDURE

The Minister for Justice, Mrs. Nora

Owen T.D., has established this

Advisory Group with terms of ref-

erence to review the existing crimi-

nal law and procedure as they cur-

rently operate and to advise the

Minister on any changes that would

enhance the operational efficiency

of criminal law and procedure with

emphasis on identified or emerging

difficulties susceptible to early res-

olution through the mechanism of

periodic Criminal Justice (Miscell-

aneous Provisions) Bills.

The Advisory Group invites

submissions on issues relevant to

the above terms of reference.

Submissions in writing should be made to the

Secretary to the AdvisoryGroup on Criminal Law

and Procedure

Room 420Department of Justice

72 - 76 St. Stephen’s GreenDublin 2

available only in respect of proceedings in the district, circuit, high orsupreme courts. The Act allows the Minister to extend by regulationlegal aid to tribunal representation. But, as matters stand, legal aidremains unavailable for tribunals such as the Employment AppealsTribunal and the Social Welfare Appeals Office. The Free Legal AdviceCentres (FLAC) provide a limited representation service at both of thesetribunals.

Clear departure from Pringle ReportAn example of a case before the Social Welfare Appeals Office mayillustrate the argument in favour of extending legal aid to tribunals inappropriate cases. The client in question, a deserted wife, had unsuc-cessfully appealed the decision to refuse her deserted wives’ benefit on aprevious occasion without the benefit of legal representation. On the sec-ond attempt, as a direct result of counsel’s written and oral submissions,the appeals officer found for the appellant.

This shows the way in which the exclusion of legal aid for the tri-bunals can prejudice social welfare claimants or those on low pay inseeking to enforce income-generating rights. The Act’s failure to providea comprehensive legal aid service is a clear departure from the recom-mendations of the Pringle Report.

The Pringle Report also recommended that ‘a comprehensive schemeof legal aid and advice should be concerned not only with the provisionof legal advice and legal representation but also with the disseminationof information about the law and with research aimed at establishing thenature and extent of hidden legal needs’. The 1995 Act imposes no oblig-ation on the Legal Aid Board to educate the general public about theirlegal rights, nor does it address the research role advocated by Pringle.As a result, the board is not encouraged to apply the considerable exper-tise developed by law centre lawyers and other employees in the formu-lating proposals on law reform.

Community law centresThe case for community involvement in law centres has long beenadvanced by FLAC and by the only existing prototype community lawcentre, the Coolock Community Law Centre. This model of legal aidenvisages the development of law centres within communities, with eachcentre having a consultative committee consisting of representatives ofthe local community. This approach aims to provide a service which ismore responsive to the particular legal needs of disadvantaged commu-nities. It is interesting to note that, while section 6.3.2 of the old schemetentatively provided for consultation between people representing localinterests and the management of the law centre, this provision has beencut from the Act.

On a related theme, while the Minister has ensured gender balance onthe Legal Aid Board, the Act fails to provide for the representation ofclient groups. As the vast majority of consumers of legal aid services areby definition living in poverty, and a sizeable majority are women, itwould seem appropriate that organisations representing the interests ofthese groups, such as Women’s Aid or the Combat Poverty Agency,should be represented on the board.

With the enactment of the 1995 Act, the Legal Aid Board purports toprovide legal aid in all matters of civil law before an Irish court, subjectto means and merits tests and to the specific exceptions listed at section28(9) of the Act. The board’s 1995 annual report confirms that 97% ofcasework and 90% of legal advice work is confined to the area of fami-ly law. These figures suggest that people may think legal aid is availableonly for family matters. As a result, it is fair to speculate that the gener-al public may be unaware of the legal aid services on offer and that theLegal Aid Board’s profile in non-matrimonial matters may need someattention.

Mary Johnson is a solicitor with FLAC.


LEGAL AIDLEGAL AID

G


The millennium problem is actually veryeasy to grasp. Some computing systemsand applications, especially older main-

frame systems and tailor-made software pro-grams, have simply not been programmed tocope with dates after 1999. They can only deter-mine the date in terms of two digits and when theyear 2000 arrives, they may think it is 1900 andprocess data incorrectly – if they process it at all.

When many computer programs were writtenin the 1960s and 70s, programmers used two-digit date fields to save memory space whichwas costly at the time. Given the fast pace ofchange in the computing industry, they did notexpect their programs to still be in use 20 yearslater. Unfortunately they are, and some programsare still being written using two-digit date fields.

Any system which uses dates to process datacould be affected. This might include payrolland invoicing systems, stock control and order-ing systems, hotel booking systems, even com-puterised systems which control productionlines or access to a building. A recent article inthe Sunday Times explained how retail giantMarks and Spencer noticed the problem whenits computers rejected all tins of corned beefstamped with a use-by date in the next century,apparently calculating that the food must bedecades old.

If the computers fail, orders may not beprocessed, invoices not sent out, payments mis-calculated, and production lines may fail – abusiness which relies on technology may not beable to operate. A study by IBM UK found thatif a company’s computer system was down fortwo weeks, there was an 80% chance that thebusiness would fail.

Forfas recently submitted a preliminary reportto the Department of Enterprise andEmployment, setting out the problems now fac-ing Irish companies. According to PeterBaldwin, principal officer in the industries divi-sion, the report is being considered and theDepartment will make a response ‘in duecourse’.

How big is the problem?According to Microsoft, the problem is primar-ily a mainframe and application-level issue.Although PC operating systems such as DOS,Windows and OS/2 can handle dates well intothe next century, some mainframe operatingsystems cannot. Custom-built application soft-ware is the other main area of concern. Theproblem is also found in data which can bepassed between companies that have electronicdata exchanges. Personal computers may alsohave problems.

It is unlikely that suppliers will provide solu-tions free of charge. Responsible suppliers of‘off-the-shelf’ packages are likely to producenew versions before the end of the century butcompanies will still have to pay for them.Companies with ageing tailor-made programsmay discover that they do not have accuratedocumentation for their programs and that find-ing the original suppliers could be difficult.Companies which have supplier maintenancecontracts will need to make sure that the con-tractors agree to solve any year 2000 date prob-lems, and this may involve additional costs,depending on the terms of the contract. Thecompanies particularly at risk are those whichuse systems but do not have IT support – theymay not be aware that they have a problem.

A number of companies have been set up tosolve the millennium problem. Many of thesehave search tools to find date fields in large pro-grams. A large company might have thousandsof programs and each program can be made up

A simple computer problem is said to have the

potential to put hundreds of Irish and UK

organisations out of business, yet a recent survey of

535 organisations in Britain showed that only 15%

of senior managers were fully aware of the problem.

Jacqui Woodhouse spoke to leading computing experts

to find out what is really going on

The millenniumtimebomb

The millenniumtimebomb

of millions of lines of code. Checking each lineof code is a time-consuming and expensive job.According to Dr Massimo Spallo of AndersenConsulting, converting a system could take twoto four man-years for each million lines of code;a rough estimate of costs would be one poundper line of code. There are lower cost alterna-tives to reprogramming every line but they carryhigher risks of failure. Companies have todecide how important accurate dates are to theirbusiness and make risk-management decisionsaccordingly.

IBM is indicating that programs need to berepaired by 1998 to allow time for testing. IanBaker, who leads the IBM Transformation 2000

TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY

Microsoft, for example, points out that while itsproducts can support dates into the next century,the products can perform incorrectly if PC pro-grammers and end-users have not used built-indate formats. Examples might include databaseor spreadsheet tools. Many users are unaware ofthe year 2000 issues and are creating unsafeapplications today. The Gartner Group is predict-ing that only 10% of PC applications will beaffected by date representation problems at theend of 1999, but the diversity and number of PCprogramming tools will make identification diffi-cult and expensive. It also points out that thenumber of PC applications affected will reduceby at least half if organisations institute a pro-gram of education and training for PC users.

There are a number of information and sup-port services to help companies get to grips withthe problem. In the UK, the Computer Softwareand Services Association (CSSA) maintains afree list of members providing millennium ser-vices and runs a helpline to try to match compa-nies with the most appropriate supplier. TheCSSA has also produced a report in conjunctionwith the Department of Trade and Industry,Defusing the millennium bomb. This 28-pagereport provides a summary of the problem and ofawareness levels and also provides managementguidelines for action. There is no similar publica-tion in this country, so Irish companies might bewell-advised to get hold of the UK report.

IBM has also been active and provides a freeguide, called The year 2000 and two-digit dates:a guide for planning and implementation,through the IBM Software Group Home Page onthe Internet. There are other sites on the Internetwhich can make interesting reading (see boxbelow).

Top management issueWhat is clear from the advice available at presentis the fact that companies cannot afford to wait.No-one will miraculously solve any problem forthem. They also should not waste time trying tofind someone to blame for the problem. Internetsites and computing magazines have been dis-cussing the issue for some time. While a recentsurvey showed that while 70% of IT managersare aware of the problem, there is a concern thatIT managers are not telling top management forfear of being blamed. The message is: this is a topmanagement issue.

Companies need to find out as soon as possi-ble whether they have a problem. They must findout what IT staff know and what they are doingabout it. If necessary, they should appoint a pro-ject manager to find out what systems the com-pany has, and to talk to suppliers and other com-panies in the industry to assess the scale of theproblem for the company and the possible costs.This is just the starting point. In the meantime,the clock is ticking.

Jacqui Woodhouse is a freelance writer.

m

USEFUL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

IBM Web Site: http:www.software.ibm.com.CSSA web site: http:www.cssa.co.uk/cssa/new/millen.htm or telephone Nicki Blinkhorn 00 44 171 4052171Year 2000 Web: http:www.year2000. com(US-based but still relevant)

team in Europe, points out that this is a competi-tive edge issue and that there is a big prize forbeing ahead of the game. Although there aresolutions, it is anticipated that there will be ashortage of programmers and prices will go up asyear 2000 approaches.

Personal computers could also have hardwareand software problems. At the hardware level,there may be a problem with the in-built clock.Anyone with a PC can apply a simple test to seewhether they will fail at the end of the century.After making sure files are backed up, set the dateto 31 December 1999 and set the time to 23.58.Switch off the computer and, after a few minutes,switch it back on to check the date. It should say

1 January 2000. Many personal computers willfail the test. At this level, there is not a particu-larly high level of concern, since it can beassumed that many PCs will be retired by 2000.

Problems can also be found in PC programs.


G

Gone are the days when you qualified as a solicitor, entered a practice and stayed there until the day you shelved your Mongey on probate. Increasing

competition is leading many to consider careers outside private practice. Catherine Dolan spoke to some solicitors who have made the move

The new bree


Mobility is the name of the game thesedays. Increasing competition amongsolicitors and a marked rise in the

numbers entering the profession has led to alack of opportunities in traditional private prac-tice. However, qualifying as a solicitor shouldnot be seen as the end of a process but rather thebeginning of a career which can include optionsin areas that may seem a far cry from workingas a solicitor.

The Law Society has been actively promot-ing the recruitment of solicitors’ jobs outsideprivate practice. Geraldine Hynes was appoint-ed as a careers adviser with the Society twoyears ago and this is one of her major aims. Inconjunction with the Career DevelopmentCommittee, chaired by John Costello, a lot hasbeen achieved by increasing the awarenessamong the business community of the skills thata solicitor can offer as an employee.

The Society has worked to develop goodrelations with the business community.

Last year the Bar Council appointed a pressand public relations manager for the first

time. That person was Edel Gormally, a solic-itor who trained with McCann FitzGerald.This is a particularly exciting role because sheis establishing the function for the BarCouncil for the first time. Since taking up hernew position, she has been involved in awide range of PR activities, including eventmanagement, monitoring issues covered inthe media, issuing press releases and organ-ising interviews. She is also editor of the Barreview, the journal of the Irish Bar, whichwas launched shortly after she took up herposition last year.

Gormally feels that her solicitor’s trainingis very compatible with her present role incommunications. ‘Some of the more adminis-trative matters I find myself dealing with arevery far removed from law, but generally Ifind that my knowledge of the law and thelegal system is invaluable when talking tojournalists on law-related issues and in help-ing to translate Bar Council policy whenpreparing press releases or interviews’.

After qualifying with McCanns in 1992,Gormally completed an LLM in Trinity

College, Cambridge, and then spent time lec-turing in UCG and Dundalk RTC. She enjoyedlecturing but she was still searching for herniche. Her move into the public relations areacame about when she saw an ad for KeatingPublic Relations, which was looking for a‘corporate communications specialist’. Shetook a chance and applied for the job, even

though it seemed to be outside her area, andwas quite surprised to be offered the posi-tion on the basis of her legal background.

During her time at Keatings, Gormally wasinstrumental in securing the Bar Councilaccount. Shortly afterwards, the Bar Councildecided to appoint an in-house PR person,and she got the job. She sees it as the perfectcombination of law and her communicationsexpertise.

‘It is interesting to leave a job and enter atotally different area. People’s perceptions ofyou are different’, she says. ‘People oftenhave a preconceived idea of a professionwhich is entirely at variance with reality. Ifyou leave the solicitors’ profession, you mustadjust to a new environment. You no longerhave the label of being a “solicitor”. Youmust gain credibility and respect throughshowing what you can do’.

She does not think she will return to pri-vate practice but highly values her training asa solicitor. She would not have landed hercurrent job if it were not for the skills shelearnt through her legal training, but she ishappier in a new role which seems to suit herbetter.

Catherine Dolan is a legal editor for RoundHall Sweet & Maxwell and is a former editorof the Gazette.

Originally, this policy was adopted as a reactionto the shortage of jobs for newly-qualified solic-itors, but it is a testament to the Society’s effortsthat there has been a growing demand for solici-tors in other areas of business. An employmentregister was established by the Society and manyjobs in non-traditional areas have been filled.

The non-legal content of the professionaltraining courses at Blackhall Place has also beenincreased. The advanced course now containsmanagement modules covering such areas asstrategic and financial management, humanresources, marketing, and organisational behav-iour. There is also training in presentation andcommunication skills. According to GeraldineHynes, ‘more and more recently-qualified solic-itors are showing an interest in jobs outside pri-vate legal practice’. Happily, this development iscomplemented by a realisation on the part of thebusiness community that solicitors can make avaluable contribution to their businesses.

There are a number of solicitors working in

other capacities within the Society itself, includ-ing the Director General, the Director ofEducation, Geraldine Hynes herself and theDeputy Director of Education, Harriet Kinahan,who is leaving the Society on leave of absenceto become the Strategic Planning andDevelopment Manager with Co-operationNorth. The organisation is currently re-apprais-ing its primary role and Kinahan will be helpingto implement its strategic plan. As a solicitorwho has worked in the Society’s Law Schoolfor five years, she feels she will be able to drawon her administrative skills, her people skillsand, last but not least her, legal skills.

The Gazette met three other solicitors whohave successfully moved into other areas ofbusiness, bringing with them the skills theyacquired as part of their solicitor training.

The press and PR manager

G

ed of solicitor


CAREERSCAREERS

Garrett Fennell has recently been appoint-ed public affairs consultant in the ESB.

The organisation will be facing major changesover the next three years and there will be ageneral rationalisation as it prepares for immi-nent competition. As public affairs consultant,Fennell will play a major role in this change.

He qualified as a solicitor in 1992 withMcCann FitzGerald. Before starting hisapprenticeship, he worked in RGDATA and inPark Communications, a public relations con-sultancy, where he gained experience in pub-lic affairs and in advising on impending legis-lation. He learnt about the public relationsenvironment and how political lobbyingworks in this context.

While he was happy working at McCanns,he decided that if the right opportunity pre-sented itself he would move on. Last year, at31, he felt it was time to make some careerdecisions. When he was offered the job with

the ESB, he recognised it as the perfect move.Fennell agrees that the Law Society should

actively encourage apprentices to considerthe idea of going into areas outside tradi-tional private practice, something which wasnot encouraged when he attended the pro-fessional and advanced courses at BlackhallPlace. While the professional training ofapprentices is essentially to train them assolicitors, he says, apprentices should also betaught that they can do other things too andthat being a solicitor should open many inter-esting doors for them. In his opinion,‘Knowledge of the law is increasingly becom-ing a vital part of running any business’, hesays.

Garrett Fennell is currently enjoying hisnew position with the ESB, but he knows thatif he returns to private practice his experienceas a public affairs consultant will only serveto enhance his status as a solicitor.

Dara McCluskey is a solicitor now workingas a multimedia producer with Agtel

Communications in Fitzwilliam Square (which,ironically, are the former offices of Binchysolicitors). Among other things, the companymakes corporate videos and TV programmesand he works in its multimedia division.

His work as a multimedia producer com-bines the use of graphics, video and audio.One recent project was for the Departmentof Foreign Affairs and involved producing aCD-ROM version of a 300-page book onIreland. This CD-ROM encyclopaedia has nowbeen despatched to Irish embassies all overthe world and can be given to people whoneed information about this country. Aknowledge of computer programming andgood writing skills are important aspects ofthis job.

McCluskey believes there is enormouspotential for the multimedia industry inIreland and that it is only in its infancy here.CD-ROM has particular relevance to the legalarea and could be a useful tool for the lawyerresearching a particular area of law.

He qualified as a solicitor in 1993, havingtrained as an apprentice with Young & Co inRathmines. During his apprenticeship, he wasinvolved in publishing a magazine forapprentices called Zeitgeist. This stimulatedhis interest in journalism and, when he qual-ified, he applied to do an MA in journalism inDublin City University. After spending sometime on the Sunday Business Post, he joined

Agtel just as the company wanted to get intomultimedia. McCluskey had all the differenttalents necessary for the job and was offeredthe position. ‘To do multimedia, you have tobe multimedia – you have to understand allaspects of it. You need to be technical, beable to understand design, be able to write,be able to understand the content in the firstplace, and also have an awareness of mediain general’, he says.

One aspect of his current job which heprefers is the fact that there is an end-prod-

uct. In private practice he was frustratedbecause ‘mostly you are changing the stateof affairs between two parties, and there isnothing tangible to show for it at the end ofthe day. In multimedia, at the end of eachproject you have something tangible’. Whilehe feels that being a solicitor in private prac-tice can be a rewarding career, McCluskey ishappier using the skills he learnt during hislegal training in a different way. ‘To be asolicitor in private practice, you need to besuited to it’, he says.

The multimedia producer

The public affairs consultant

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


1. ConfidentialityThe President began the meetingby stating that it was appropriateearly in the new Council year forhim to remind the Council of therecommendation of the ReviewWorking Group that Council andcommittee members should beconstantly aware of the need forthe strictest confidentiality in rela-tion to matters coming to theirknowledge, particularly in theareas of regulation and com-plaints.

2. Motion: Practice man-agement courseThat this Council approves theterms of the draft StatutoryInstrument in relation to theSolicitors’ Practice Managementand Development Course and,subject to the concurrence of theMinister for Justice, resolves thatit be enacted to be effective from 1April 1997.Proposer: Pat O’ConnorSeconder: Terence McCrann.

The Council approved the propos-er’s request that the motion bewithdrawn, to be reintroduced at afuture date.

3. Reciprocal arrange-ments with PennsylvaniaBar AssociationThe Council approved in principlethe Education Committee’s pro-posal that reciprocal arrangementsbe established with the Pennsyl-vania Bar Association. Underthese arrangements, a lawyer fromPennsylvania who had practised inthat state for five years could applyfor admission to the Roll ofSolicitors in Ireland, provided heor she sat and passed the QualifiedLawyers Transfer Test, which is avery rigorous examination in Irishlaw, together with an examination

in EU law. There would be noapprenticeship requirement. TheEducation Committee was of theview that such a reciprocalarrangement would be of benefitto Irish lawyers who might wish toseek opportunities in Pennsylvaniaand it was not envisaged that therewould be a high level of applica-tions from Pennsylvanian lawyers.

4. AdjudicatorThe Council noted that theMinister for Justice had raised incorrespondence the establishmentof a ‘separate and clearly indepen-dent appeals forum for complaintsabout the Law Society’s handlingof complaints’. Section 15 of theSolicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994had provided for such a person tobe known as an Adjudicator. Itwas noted that, in 1993, when theconcept of an Adjudicator wasoriginally mooted, the Society hadindicated it had no difficulty withthe proposal as a matter of policy,but had objected to the require-ment that it be funded by solici-tors. The Society already had laymembers who sat on itsRegistrar’s Committee and whosereports showed they were wellsatisfied with the Society’s han-dling of complaints. That system,with the benefit of suggestionsfrom the lay members, the Societywas constantly seeking toimprove. The Society had nothingto hide in relation to its com-plaints handling and, indeed, as anumber of Council members sug-gested, there could well be publicrelations benefits to having anAdjudicator. However, theCouncil strongly objected to theadditional cost being borne bysolicitors in this regard. It wasagreed that the Society shouldseek a meeting with the Ministeron the matter.

5. Education litigationThe chairman of the EducationCommittee reported on the issueswhich had arisen following theHigh Court judgment of Mr JusticeMcCracken of 15 July 1996, in theAbrahamson proceedings in rela-tion to the application of that judg-ment to three ‘mixed law’ degrees,namely the BBLS from UCD, theLLB (law and French or German)from University of Dublin and theBCorpLaw from UCG. Counselhad now advised the Society inrelation to the application of thefindings of legitimate expectationand exceptional circumstances inMr McCracken’s judgment tothese mixed law degree, as well asto the pure law degree, students. Inaccordance with this, theEducation Committee’s discretionshould be exercised in favour ofthis additional group of students.The effect of doing so would be tobring the Abrahamson litigation toa conclusion. The Council indicat-ed its support for the resolutionsbeing considered by the EducationCommittee.

6. Section 68Terence McCrann reported that theSection 68 Committee hoped topublish brochures in the nearfuture which would provide addi-tional guidance to practitioners ondifferent areas of practice.

7. TechnologyThe Technology Committee wascongratulated on its excellentbrochure which had been circulat-ed with a recent issue of theGazette.

8. The Attorney GeneralCorrespondence between theSociety and the Attorney General,complaining about the advertise-ment of positions of legal assis-

tants in the Attorney General’soffice with eligibility confined tobarristers, had been circulated tothe Council. It was noted that aquestion had been raised in theDail on the matter and that theSociety had received supportiveletters from many TDs. It wasagreed that the broader issueswhich had been raised by theAttorney General should be placedon the agenda for consideration atthe January Council meeting.

9. Education PolicyReview GroupThe President referred to theEducation Policy Review Groupwhich the Annual GeneralMeeting had directed him to estab-lish and reported that, with a viewto experience, balance and inde-pendence, he had invited the fol-lowing to be members of thegroup: Ray Monahan (Chairman),Donald Binchy (Jnr), Judge John FBuckley, John A Campbell,Barbara Cotter, Raphael King,Professor Bryan McMahon,Andrea Martin, Ken Murphy,Hugh O’Neill, Michael VO’Mahony, Albert Power, BryanSheridan and Bill Stokes.

Council ReportReport on Council meeting held on 12 December 1996

COMPANY FORMATIONCompany Service of the Law Society,

Blackhall Place, Dublin 7

• FAST • EFFICIENT • • MEMBERS OF EXPRESS SERVICE •• COMPETITIVE PRICES • FRIENDLY •

Private Limited Company – 10 days, £245

Guarantee Company – 10 days, £265

Shelf Company – 10 mins, £245

Non-Resident Company – 10 days, £245

Single Member Company – 10 days, £245

New Companies – using complete nominees – 10 days, £255

Phone: CARMEL or RITAat 671 0711, ext 450

Fax: 671 3523


BRIEFINGBRIEFING

aware that CROLine can beaccessed across the EIRPAC datanetwork operated by TelecomEireann. As operating systemsvary, practitioners should contacttheir service providers to effect this.

Companies Office information manualA new edition of the helpfulCompanies Office informationmanual is now available over thecounter at the Companies Office,price £3. This is a must for everypractice.

Investment IntermediariesAct, 1995 Practitioners should be aware of thewide application of the InvestmentIntermediaries Act, 1995. Forexample, a company established byaccountants to manage BES invest-ments must be authorised. A mem-orandum published by the CentralBank, the regulator of investmentintermediaries, is available at nocost from the Central Bank ofIreland, Dame Street, Dublin 2.

Submissions on existingand pending legislationThe committee has made a numberof submissions with respect torecent Bills before the Oireachtasand certain existing legislation.These relate to the Irish TakeoverPanel Bill, 1996, the CompaniesAct, 1990, section 31, and theMergers and Takeovers (Control)Acts, 1978 to 1996 and theCompetition Acts, 1991 and 1996.On the last of these, it is relevantthat the profession is representedon the Mergers and CompetitionLaw Review Group by committeechairman Gerald FitzGerald.Copies of the submissions areavailable on request from the com-mittee secretary on 671 0711.

TAXATION

Capital acquisitions taxThe capital acquisitions tax indexa-tion factor for 1997 is 1.237. Thisgives the following class thresholds

after indexation:Class A: 185,550Class B: 24,740Class C: 12,370.

Probate taxThe probate tax indexation factorfor 1997 is 1.082, giving an exemp-tion threshold of 10,820.

The Revenue informationserviceOne of the lesser-known servicesprovided by the Revenue is thepublication of Tax briefing, whichpublishes Revenue news and viewson taxation issues. This is availablefrom the Customer Service Unit,Office of the Chief Inspector ofTaxes, Fourth Floor, SetantaCentre, Nassau St, Dublin 2.

Booklets and leafletsThere are a number of good guidesand leaflets which can be obtainedfrom the Revenue Forms & LeafletsService. The following is a sampleof what is currently available.

Income taxIT1: Allowances, reliefs and tax

ratesIT3: Tax-free allowancesIT6: Medical expenses reliefIT10: Guide to self-assessment

for the self-employedIT11: Employees’ guide to PAYEIT13: Personal injury compensa-

tion paymentsIT28: Tax relief for designated

Third World charities

Capital gains taxCGT1: Guide to capital gains taxCGT2: CGT – self-assessmentCGT3: Roll-over relief for Indiv-

iduals on disposal of cer-tain shares

Capital acquisitions taxCAT1: Gift taxCAT2: Inheritance taxCAT3: Probate taxCAT4: Capital acquisitions tax

business reliefCAT5: Agricultural Relief – 1995

Finance ActCAT9: Tax relief for business.

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

The Practice ManagementCommittee has a number of inter-esting and worthwhile projects inhand at the moment. March seesthe publication of an Office manu-al designed to help practices putsystems in place in relation to per-sonnel, general administration(such as postage and telephoneusage), case management, finan-cial management and so on. It willinclude useful precedents such asstandard contracts for solicitorsand support staff, staff appraisalforms, and new matter forms.

In regard to courses, it is hopedto re-run the successful IMI coursein the Autumn with appropriaterevision for one and two solicitorpractices. Day-long seminars onfinancial management and market-ing for solicitors are being run inconjunction with the University ofLimerick during January andFebruary. An office administratorscourse is being planned for later inthe year.

An audio tape lasting 70 min-utes, covering eight different prac-tice management issues, such ascash flow management and mar-keting, is being produced. It will bedesigned so that it can be listenedto in ten minute slots. Drive care-fully!

With regard to marketing, thereare a number of articles planned forthe Gazette on this topic and anexperimental workshop will beheld in Blackhall Place in March. Ifthis is successful, it will be broughtto the regions.

As ever, Revenue audits arehigh on the agenda, and variousmeans of giving members supportin this area are being investigated.

A pamphlet is being preparedfor all practices on ISO 9000/QMark. The objective is to lay out, insimple terms, the costs and benefitsof pursuing this form of accredita-tion. The pamphlet should givepractices a good flavour of what isinvolved and a list of consultantswho can help progress the matter.

Committee reportsCOMPANY LAW

Mergers Act notification feeA fee of £4,000 is now payable onnotifications of mergers ortakeovers which are notifiableunder the Mergers and Takeovers(Control) Acts, 1978 to 1996. Thisfee was introduced with effectfrom 1 January 1997 by StatutoryInstrument 381 of 1996, dated 7December 1996. Note that thedrafting of the primary and sec-ondary legislation suggests thatthis fee is payable per notificationand not per transaction. Therefore,if each enterprise notifies separate-ly as opposed to jointly, thereappears to be nothing in the legis-lation which would exonerate anotifying party from the obligationto pay the fee.

Informal contacts between thecommittee and the CompetitionPolicy Section of the Departmentof Enterprise and Employmentindicate that the fee need not betendered in ‘grey area’ cases –cases where the Department is like-ly to state that in its view the Actdoes not apply to the relevanttransaction. Typically, this ariseswhere the enterprises involvedhave worldwide gross assets orturnover exceeding the £10 millionand £20 million thresholds respec-tively, but with gross assets andturnover within the State fallingbelow the thresholds.

Increased Competition Actnotification feeThe fee for notifications to theCompetition Authority for licencesand certificates under theCompetition Acts, 1991 and 1996has increased from £100 to £250with effect from 1 January 1997.This fee was increased by StatutoryInstrument 379 of 1996, dated 9December 1996.

CROLine access difficultiesPractitioners encountering difficul-ties in accessing CROLine via theirusual mode of access should be

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


INDEX TO THESTATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

1987-95

The Office of the AttorneyGeneral has recently published

an Index to the StatutoryInstruments, 1987 – 95.

The Index is on salethrough the GovernmentPublications Sale Office,

and costs £12.

The committee is also discussingvarious initiatives with quality con-sultants to make the achievement ofaccreditation easier for solicitors.

The committee has just complet-ed a test market on a Practice com-parison exercise. The objective ofthis exercise is to elicit certaininformation from practices, such asrevenue per partner, support staff

ratios, overhead costs and so on.This information will then beanalysed and a report will be pre-pared for the practice indicatinghow it performs on the various indi-cators and also how this perfor-mance compares with other prac-tices of a similar profile. Practiceswill be categorised into small/medi-um/large and Dublin/urban/rural.

Other projects currently beingdeveloped are the establishment ofa business plan framework to helppractices focus on the futuredevelopment of their practice anda project on career management tohelp resolve some of the thornyissues arising from limited careerprogression opportunities withinpractices.

341/96 Criminal Justice Act, 1994 (Section 55(1)) Order, 1996. Designates coun-tries for the purpose of searches in relation to drug trafficking under sec-tion 55(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994.

342/96 Criminal Justice Act, 1994 (Section 47(1)) Order, 1996. Designates coun-tries where forfeiture co-operation orders may be made under section 47(1)of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994.

343/96 Criminal Justice Act, 1994 (Section 46(6)) Regulations, 1996.Regulations governing confiscation co-operation orders under section 46(6)of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994.

344/96 Criminal Justice Act, 1994 (Section 46(1)) Order, 1996. Designates coun-tries where confiscation co-operation orders may be made under section46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994.

351/96 Solicitors (Advertising) Regulations, 1996369/96 Consumer Credit Act, 1995 (Section 2) (No 2) Regulations, 1996.

Further supplements the definition of ‘credit institution’ in the ConsumerCredit Act, 1995.

370/96 Protection of Employment Order, 1996. Implements Council Directive92/56/EEC on collective redundancies. Amends the Protection ofEmployment Act, 1977.

371/96 Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996. Appoints 2January 1997 as the commencement date for the Act.

377/96 Rules of the Superior Courts (No 2) of 1996. Makes provision for appli-cations to the High Court under the Air Pollution Act, 1987. Comes intooperation on 1 January 1997.

379/96 Competition (Notification Fee) Regulations, 1996. Prescribes a fee of£250 to be sent with any agreement, decision or concerted practice notified

Legislation update: December 1996No Title of Act and date passed

34 Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996 (10December,1996). Establishes the office of Director of Telecommunications Regulation andprovides for the transfer to the Director of the functions of the Minister forTransport, Energy and Communications relating to the regulation of thetelecommunications, radio-communications and cable television sectors. Amends the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983.Commencement date: See Commencement Orders SI no 385 and SI no 402of 1996

35 Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1996 (14December 1996)Gives the force of law to the London convention on the limitation of liabil-ity for maritime claims, 1976, the Athens convention on the carriage of pas-sengers and their luggage by sea, 1974, and London protocol, 1976, theInternational convention relating to bills of lading, Brussels, 1924, asamended by Brussels protocols, 1968 and 1979.Commencement date: Commencement Order/s to be made

36 Registration of Births Act, 1996Provides for a new form of birth certificate in order to remove genderinequalities in the particulars registered.Commencement date: Commencement Order to be made

37 Control of Horses Act, 1996 (19 December 1996)Provides for the licensing of horses in urban and other areas where horsescause a danger to persons or property or nuisance. Provides for penalties onconviction for offences under the Act. Also increases fines under the Pounds(Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935, section 5 of the Animals Act, 1985,and alters penalties under section 1(1) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911.Commencement date: Commencement Order/s to be made

38 Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996 (19 December 1996)Extends the criminal law of the State to sexual offences committed againstchildren in any other jurisdiction by citizens of this State, or by persons ordi-narily resident in this State, which if committed in this State would consti-tute criminal offences.Commencement date: 19 December 1996

39 Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and ParliamentaryOffices (Amendment) Act, 1996 (20 December 1996)Amends and extends the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Acts, 1938 to1994, and the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Acts, 1938 to 1992.Commencement date: 1 January 1996 (per section 7 of the Act)

40 Appropriation Act, 1996 (20 December 1996)Appropriates to the proper purposes sums granted out of the Central Fund.Commencement date: 20 December 1996

41 Milk (Regulation of Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (2 January 1997)Amends the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Act, 1994.Commencement date: 2 January 1997

42 Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 1996 (2 January 1997)Increases the maximum amount of compensation payable for mental dis-tress in fatal injuries actions brought under the Civil Liability Act, 1961 from£7,500 to £20,000 and extends to cohabitants and to divorced persons theright to claim certain damages under the 1961 Act.Commencement date: 2 January 1997

43 Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1996 (2 January 1997)Revises the electoral law to facilitate voting by disabled voters and providesfor other electoral matters.Commencement date: 2 January 1997

No Title of Act and date passed

to the Competition Authority under s7 of the Competition Act, 1991.381/96 Merger or Takeover (Notification Fee) Regulations, 1996. Prescribes a

fee of £4,000 to accompany a notification of a merger or takeover unders5(1A) of the Mergers, Takeovers and Monopolies (Control) Act, 1978.

386/96 Dangerous Substances (Conveyance of Petroleum by Road)(Amendment) Regulations, 1996

387/96 Dangerous Substances Act, 1972 (Part IV Declaration) Order, 1996.Lists dangerous substances specified in the ADR Agreement – theEuropean Agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerousgoods by road.

388/96 Dangerous Substances (European Agreement concerning theInternational Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) Regulations,1996

389/96 Dangerous Substances (Conveyance of Scheduled Substances byRoad) (Trade or Business) (Amendment) Regulations, 1996

397/96 Child Care (Standards in Children’s Residential Centres) Regulations,1996

398/96 Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations, 1996399/96 Child Care Act, 1991 (Commencement) Order, 1996. Brings ss49 to 65

and 67 of the Child Care Act, 1991, into operation on 18 December 1996(parts relating to supervision of pre-school services and children’s residen-tial services).

400/96 Solicitors (Practising Certificate 1997 Fees) Regulations, 1996. 401/96 Solicitors (Practising Certificate 1997) Regulations, 1996408/96 Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales

Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations, 1996

SELECTED STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

G


BRIEFINGBRIEFING

Every business is reactive; it isall a question of degree.

Successful people always plan:they may have to change the plan,but they do plan. When a plan ischanged, a judgement is made.Less successful people often claimthat they cannot plan because theirjob is reactive; this a cop-out.

Accepting, then, that we can allplan, what is the best way? Well,to be successful, one needs to:● Define one’s goals● Decide what tasks need to be

done in order to achieve thosegoals

● Decide who else is involved● Decide when is the best time to

do those tasks.

In short: goals, what, who andwhen.

Goal settingGoals should be written down andkept on hand when planning. Both

Practice management

work and private life goals shouldmeet two criteria: they should berealistic and challenging, and theyshould be qualified and givendeadlines.

If you have not clearly definedyour work goals, talk to yoursenior partner. The next stage is toidentify which are the tasks thatare directly related to achievingthose goals.

What are the right tasks? It is easy to be busy withoutachieving much. Surveys of howmanagers spend their time haveshown that Pareto’s principlelives. You may also know it as the80/20 rule. It applies to manythings: 80% of your fees usuallycome from 20% of your clients. Itis the significant few accountingfor the many. At work, 20% ofwhat we do in the day produces80% of the results, so it is a ques-tion of focusing on the right things.

The best approach is to make alist of all the tasks that you can dothat are directly linked to youachieving your goals. Ideally,group them in key focus areassuch as: servicing existing clients,practice development, financialcontrol, professional updating etc.This makes it easier to get anoverview and to set priorities.

When to do those tasksHaving chosen the ‘right things’ todo and built them into a decision-base that you can overview, younow need to link that to your dailyplanning. Here are some tips onusing a diary:● Be realistic. Before making a list

of tasks for the day, decide onyour available time. Take yourbooked time from your total timeto arrive at your available time.If your job is particularly cre-ative, add some insurance

● Look at your decision-base, as

described above, and pick outthe most important things thatyou need to achieve in the avail-able time

● Put the most important item inthe most favourable time of theday and build the lesser tasksaround it

● Don’t slash your wrists if thingschange.

All this is theory that is easily for-gotten under the day-to-day pres-sures.

In his book What they don’tteach you at Harvard BusinessSchool, Mark McCormack, one ofAmerica’s most famous lawyers,wrote: ‘I have never known a suc-cessful person in business whodidn’t operate from some person-al organisational system’.

Peter Hancock of Peter Hancock& Company is a consultant andlecturer on time management.

Planning for success

G

Available for use from the LawSociety Library

Refundable deposit of £20 for ten working days

FOR BORROWING OR A COMPLETE LISTING, CONTACT THE LAW SOCIETY LIBRARY ON(TEL: 6710711, FAX: 6710704).

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT VIDEOS• Legal skills training: advocacy,

negotiation, consultation• Business planning• Telephone courtesy & customer care• Customer service• 50 Ways to keep your customers• How to computerise your accounts• Managing time• Stress management for professionals• Controlling interruptions• How to deal with difficult people• How to interview & hire the right people

• Outstanding receptionist• Professional telephone skills• Finance for non-financial professionals• Taking control of your workday• Getting organised• Assessing yourself and your team• Managing change• Leadership skills• Developing your staff• Motivating your people• Cultivating your communication skills• The power of a positive attitude.

EurlegalNews from the EU and International Affairs Committee

Compiled by Deborah Maguire, LLM, solicitor with A&L Goodbody

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


Merck & Co Inc and Others vPrimecrown & Others, C-267/95;Beecham Group plc and Others vEuropharm, C-268/95; ECJ 5December 1996

The European Court of Justicehas recently ruled that the

holders of intellectual propertyrights of pharmaceutical productscannot block the importation ofthose goods into European Unionstates when they have lawfullybeen marketed in another countryof the union.

The case arose when pharma-ceutical companies Merck andBeecham brought an action in thePatents Court in the UK againstvarious companies that hadimported pharmaceutical productsfrom Spain and Portugal into theUK. Merck and Beecham held thepatent rights to those products andwished to prevent parallel impor-tation because the prices are high-er in the UK than in Spain orPortugal.

Free movement of goodsThe legal questions which arosecentred on whether the provisionson free movement of goods in theEC Treaty could prohibit ownersof intellectual property rights fromexercising those rights to preventparallel importation. The EnglishPatents Court referred the ques-tions to the European Court ofJustice as a preliminary rulingunder Article 177 of the Treaty. In

an earlier ruling in the Stepharcase, the ECJ had held that owner-ship of patent rights did not allowthe holder of those rights to pre-vent the importation of productsinto a country which did not permitregistration of patents for thoseproducts.

The plaintiffs (Merck andBeecham) argued that the ECJ

should now overturn its ruling inthe Stephar case. But the courtrejected the arguments made bythe plaintiffs and held that theexercise of intellectual propertyrights in this way would allow par-titioning of the internal market andwas therefore contrary to the freemovement provisions of the ECTreaty.

Case C-68/95 T, Port GmBH &Co KG v Bundesanstalt fur Land-wirtschaft und Ernahrung

The European Court ofJustice’s conclusions in a

recent banana case have broad-ranging implications, particularlyfor traders who have been affectedby a change to a common marketorganisation.

T Port is a German bananaimporter which had imported con-siderable amounts of bananasfrom Latin America prior to thesetting-up of the common marketorganisation (CMO) in bananasunder Regulation 404/93. Itfound that, under the CMO, it wasentitled to a quota which repre-sented only 1% of its annualimports over the previous sixyears. This was because of a

Intellectual property and pharmaceutical products

Protecting traders’fundamental rights

breach of contract by T Port’sColombian suppliers during thereference years which are used todetermine the licence allocationunder the regulation.

One of the questions referred tothe ECJ by the German court waswhether Article 30 of Regulation404/93, which provides for specif-ic measures to help the transitionfrom the arrangements existingprior to the regulation, requiredthe Commission to lay down rulesto deal with cases of hardshipsuch as that of T Port.

The court confirmed that theCommission has a broad discre-tion in assessing whether transi-tional measures are necessary, butit said that the Commission or theCouncil, as the case may be, areobliged to take action if the diffi-culties associated with the transi-

IN BRIEFCo-operationwith nationalcompetitionauthoritiesThe European Commissionhas recently published draftguidelines on co-operationwith national authorities incompetition cases (1996 OJC262/5). The aim of thenotice is similar to that pre-viously published in 1992 –to clarify the respectiveroles of national competi-tion authorities and theCommission in relation tocompetition law cases. TheCommission wants to en-courage national competi-tion authorities to deal withcases which are of mainlynational significance.

Investigationsinto airlineagreementsThe Commission has an-nounced the start of threeseparate investigationsunder Article 89 of theTreaty into different co-operation agreements bet-ween airlines. The threeagreements are betweenBritish Airways/AmericanAirlines; Lufthansa/UnitedAirlines/Scandinavian Air-lines; and Delta/Sabena/Swissair/Austrian airlines.The Commission will inves-tigate whether the pro-posed co-operation agree-ments are in accordancewith the competition provi-sions of the EC Treaty.


BRIEFINGBRIEFING

OTHER CURRENT ISSUES IN EU LAW

Protection against third-country legislationThe Council has adopted a joint action andregulation which forbid the recognition orenforcement of any measure taken in compli-ance with certain US legislation enacted aspart of the that country’s trade embargoes onCuba, Iran and Libya. Based on the provisionsof 73(c) 113 and 235 of the Treaty, the regula-tion prohibits compliance with US legislationwhich could, for example, prevent the entryinto the US of persons with dealings in prop-erty which was formerly owned by US personsbut appropriated by the Cuban regime.

Article 5 of the regulation states that ‘noperson [to whom the regulation applies] shallcomply ... with any requirement or prohibi-tion, including requests of foreign courtsbased on or resulting, directly or indirectly,from the laws specified’. The regulationentered into force on the date of its publica-

tion in the Official Journal (29 November 1996)and is binding in its entirety (see OJ L309/1 of29/11/96).

Givenchy and Yyes StLaurant agreementsThe Court of First Instance has confirmed thatGivency and Yves Saint Laurant luxury per-fumes may continue to be sold by specialisedretailers. The court agreed to their criteria forselecting distributors except the conditionwhich demands that the main business of adistributor should be in selling perfumes. Thecourt indicated that this condition can nolonger be included in the agreements (seecases T-19/92, T-8/92 and T-87/92). These rulingsare significant at this time, because in May1997 the Commission will have to decide onwhether to renew its approval of the 1992Yves Saint Laurant and Givenchy selective dis-tribution agreements.

tion from national arrangementsrequire it. In particular, theCommunity institutions must actwhen the transition to the CMOinfringes certain traders’ funda-

mental rights protected byCommunity law, such as the rightto property and the right to pursuea profession or trade activity.

The court added the proviso

that the difficulties associatedwith the transition from nationalarrangements must not have beencaused by lack of care on the partof the trader concerned. The case

IRISH KIDNEYASSOCIATIONDonor House, 156 Pembroke Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.Tel: 01 -668 9788/9 Fax: 01 - 668 3820

The Irish Kidney Association was formed in 1978 to:

1. Promote the general welfare of persons suffering kidney failure - financial and psychological.

2. To give advice and guidance to parents and relatives.

3. To arrange lectures, conferences and meetings pertaining to kidney disease.

4. To support research projects into the causes and effects of inherited disorders and kidney failure.

5. To print and distribute the Multi-Organ Donor Cardand actively promote public awareness of organ failure.

REMEMBER US WHEN MAKING A WILL!

Certified by the Revenue Commissioners as a charity: 6327

OUR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS NATIONWIDE

Director: Sheila Kavanagh

Experts in Overnight Transcripts

Specialists in Court Reporting

Medical Cases / Arbitrations Conferences / Board Meetings

Contact:Hillcrest House,

Dargle Valley, Bray, Co. Wicklow.

Telephone/Fax: (01) 286 2184or

4b Arran Square, Dublin 7

Telephone: (01) 873 2378

IrishStenographers

Ltd

is noteworthy for two reasons:● It imposes an obligation on the

Commission and so goes beyonda mere discretion for it to providefor hardship cases

● It is most unusual because itobliges the Commission to con-sider specific individual cases.The Commission normally pro-ceeds on the basis of providing,by way of delegation to the mem-ber states, the power to deal withhardship cases. This case nowopens the route for any individ-ual company or trader to chal-lenge the Commission on thebasis of its failure to act to dealwith its hardship case.

The case may only have implica-tions in the banana sector, butbecause of the enormous numberof Commission regulations deal-ing with common market organi-sations, it could have ramifica-tions in many other sectors.

Philip Lee is a partner with LeeMcEvoy.

G

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


ILT Digestof legislation and superior court decisions

Compiled by David Boyle

ADMINISTRATIVE

Prompt Payments Bill,1996This private member’s Bill, pre-sented by Mary O’Rourke and NedO’Keeffe, aims to ensure that smallbusinesses get paid promptly byGovernment departments and Statebodies. Under the proposed legis-lation, the average credit periodfor State bodies would be 45 days(although some bodies would get60 days’ credit). Penalties for latepayment would be provided for,and supervision of the area wouldbe entrusted to the ombudsman.

National CulturalInstitutions Bill, 1996This Bill has been amended in com-mittee and passed by Seanad Éire-ann. (See also (1996) 14 ILT 266.)

Cabinet ConfidentialityBill, 1996This private member’s Bill, intro-duced by Michael McDowell, seeksto address perceived difficultieswith the decision of the SupremeCourt in Attorney General vHamilton (No 1) ([1993] ILRM81). The Bill seeks to state a gen-eral principle that cabinet businesswill remain confidential while set-ting out circumstances in which acourt or tribunal of inquiry couldreceive evidence, the disclosure ofwhich (apart from the proposed

provisions of the Bill) would oth-erwise be illegal. The Bill goes onto set out six circumstances inwhich cabinet business may be dis-closed. If enacted, the provisionsof the Bill would apply equally tocabinet business transacted beforeits passing.

Registration of BirthsBill, 1996This Bill, as presented by SenatorMaurice Manning, seeks to pro-vide for a new format of birth cer-tificate. If introduced, the new for-mat of certificate will record, interalia, the occupation and addressof the mother, as well as of thefather, and the former name(s) ofboth parents, instead of the moth-er’s maiden name. The child’s sur-name may be registered as that ofeither the father or the mother orboth. Another surname could alsobe registered under the proposedlegislation where the RegistrarGeneral considers the circum-stances to warrant it. If the Bill ispassed, the new format will applyto births registered or re-registeredafter its commencement.

Michael A Hurley vCommissioner of AnGarda Síochána (Mc-Cracken J), 23 July 1996Garda Síochána—disciplinary pro-cedures—regulations—allegedbreach of discipline—investigation

and inquiry—whether proper pro-cedures followed in conduct ofinvestigation—investigating offi-cer appointed to investigate andreport on one alleged breach ofdiscipline—tribunal finding ofbreach of discipline on twocounts—whether procedures setout in regulations followed—fairprocedures—whether strict com-pliance with procedures necessaryin every case — Garda DisciplineRegulations, 1989.Held: The Garda DisciplineRegulations had to be followed inevery case and it was not for theappointing officer or the com-plainant in relation to any partic-ular breach of discipline to decidewhether it would be futile to fol-low the procedures as set out inthe regulations.

ADOPTION

Adoption (No 2) Bill, 1996This Bill has been passed by DailÉireann. (See also (1996) 14 ILT199.)

DG & MG v An BordUchtala; CG v JanetPaisley & Ors (Laffoy J),23 May 1996Order—consent of natural moth-er—application to court to dispensewith consent to making of adop-tion order—whether valid agree-

ment to place infant for adoption—whether fully informed and freeconsent to placement—matters ofwhich mother to be fullyinformed—whether mother had tobe fully informed of the nature ofthe child's rights and her duties tothe child—whether, in circum-stances prevailing at time naturalmother made decision, that deci-sion reflected her will—family cir-cumstances of mother—attitude ofmother's parents to pregnancy—age and maturity of mother—whether mother understood thatby giving initial consent she wascreating the possibility that if shechanged her mind the court couldallow the making of an adoptionorder without needing a final con-sent from her and depriving herof custody of the infant forever—Adoption Act, 1974—Guardian-ship of Infants Act, 1964—Constitution of Ireland 1937, art 40.Held: For a consent by a motherto the placement of her child foradoption to be fully informed, themother had to be aware of: i) thenature of her rights in relation tothe child; ii) the two-stage natureof the adoption process; iii) theeffect of the making of the adop-tion order on her rights; and iv)the effect of s3 of the 1974 Actand, in particular, the possibilitythat if she gives her initial con-sent to the placement, the court


may override the requirement of afinal consent. Only if the existenceof a valid agreement to place theinfant for adoption had been estab-lished did the issue arise whetherit was in the best interests of theinfant to make a custody order andto authorise the board to dispensewith the mother's consent.

AGRICULTURE

Milk (Regulation ofSupply) (Amendment)Bill, 1996This Bill aims to make certainchanges to s3 and para 5 of theschedule to the Milk (Regulationof Supply) Act, 1994.

European Communities(Pesticide Residues)(Products of Plant Origin,including Fruit andVegetables) (Amendment)Regulations, 1996 (SI no316 of 1996)These regulations amend existingregulations by extending the listof pesticides for which residuemaximum levels have been set.These regulations came into oper-ation on 31 October 1996.

Milk (Regulation ofSupply) (Amendment)Bill, 1996This Bill has been passed by DailÉireann. (See also (1996) 14 ILTXXX.)

European Communities(Pesticide Residues)(Cereals) (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations, 1996(SI no 337 of 1996)These regulations amend existingregulations by extending the listof pesticides for which residuemaximum levels have been set.

Control of Bulls forBreeding (Permits)(Amendment)Regulations, 1996 (SI no317 of 1996)These regulations provide for thecontinuation of the system of grant-ing permits to persons to keepunregistered bulls for breedingpurposes and to extend permits

already issued under previous reg-ulations until 31 October 1998.

CHILDREN

Children Bill, 1996This Bill, as presented by theMinister for Justice, will, if enact-ed, replace the remaining provi-sions of the Children Act 1908. Itaims to place the Garda diversionprogramme (previously known asthe juvenile liaison office scheme)on a statutory basis which wouldoperate much as the present schemedoes but with the addition of a fam-ily conference feature to the oper-ation of the programme. The doliincapax rule would be placed on astatutory basis and the age of crim-inal responsibility would be raisedfrom seven to ten, with provisionto increase it to 12 years of age.The Bill includes provisions relat-ing to the treatment of children inGarda custody. A Children Court(the district court sitting to dealwith matters relating to children)would be established and the Billsets out proposed procedures forsuch a court as well as laying outpowers of courts generally in rela-tion to children, including the powerto make restriction on movementorders. Reformatory and industrialschools would be replaced by chil-dren detention schools, for thedetention of children under 16referred by the courts, under thecontrol of a single board of man-agement. The Bill also aims to makeprovision for an additional rangeof powers for health boards toensure that non-offending childrenwho are out of control receive spe-cial care, education and treatment.

COMPANY LAW

John Carway v theAttorney General (Carroll J), 3 July 1996Application for declaration thatdirectors of company in liquidationshould not be in any way concernedwith promotion or formation of anycompany for period of five years—application grounded on liquida-tor's certificate, pursuant to s149 ofCompanies Act, that companyunable to pay its debts—direction

that preliminary issue in relationto constitutionality of s149 betried—whether s149 provided forirrebuttable presumption of insol-vency—whether justiciable issuehad been removed from jurisdic-tion of the court—whether provi-sion was warranted—CompaniesAct, 1990, ss149(1)(b), 150(3).Held: The purpose of the liquida-tor's certificate, pursuant tos149(1)(b) of the Companies Act,1990, is to identify the companiesand persons to whom chapter 1 ofPart VII of that Act applies. Thereis no provision within the sectionthat the certificate is to be conclu-sive; hence, there can be no asser-tion that the section is unconstitu-tional.

CONSTITUTIONAL

Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill,1996This Bill, presented by the Ministerfor Justice and passed by bothHouses of the Oireachtas, aims toamend Article 40 of theConstitution by the addition of thefollowing text after Article 40.4.6:‘7. Provision may be made by lawfor the refusal of bail by a court toa person charged with a seriousoffence where it is reasonably con-sidered necessary to prevent thecommission of a serious offenceby that person.’ (See also (1995)13 ILT 210 for a previous attemptto introduce a similar measure.)

Director of PublicProsecutions v FrederickFlannery (Barr J), 25 June1996Right to fair trial—defendantcharged with murder—prosecutioncase relying on credibility of onewitness—during course of trialemerges Gardaí had not made num-ber of documents, affecting wit-ness's credibility, available to pros-ecution or defence—whetherGardaí had deliberately and con-sciously attempted to subvert courseof justice—whether it was no longerpossible for defendant to have fairtrial—whether jury should be dis-charged or indictment againstdefendant stayed permanently.

Held: Where a wrong which goesto the heart of the prosecution caseis discovered and is so serious innature as to stigmatise the entireprosecution, then a significant doubtmust remain that the accused maynever have the benefit of a fair trial.

DG & MG v An BordUchtala; CG v JanetPaisley & Ors (Laffoy J),23 May 1996Habeas corpus—adoption pro-ceedings—infant in custody of per-sons wishing to adopt followingplacement for adoption—applica-tion under art 40.4.2 by naturalmother—court finding that moth-er did not give valid agreement toplace child for adoption—reliefavailable to the court in art 40.4.2proceedings—whether proceedingsunder Guardianship of Infants Act,1964 more appropriate—whethercourt could determine applicationbrought by mother—principles oflaw applicable—whether infant’swelfare would not be protected byplacing him in the custody of themother—whether mother entitledto custody of the infant—AdoptionAct, 1974—Guardianship of InfantsAct, 1964—Constitution of Ireland1937, art 40.Held: As at Adoption above.

Director of PublicProsecutions v JosephDougan (Geoghegan J),30 July 1996Criminal offence—mode of trial—jurisdiction of the district court—constitutional prohibition on trialwithout jury where offence ‘non-minor’—road traffic offences—summary trial only provided—judge of district court expressingdoubt whether offence ‘minor’—whether district court could statecase for opinion of the high court—constitutional prohibition on dis-trict court stating case concerningconstitutional validity of statutoryprovision—whether case stated ineffect questioning constitutionalvalidity of provision—effect ofhigh court’s answers to case stat-ed—whether provision, if success-fully challenged, simply renderedinoperative or unconstitutional—whether district court had juris-diction to submit consultative case

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


stated—whether high court couldprovide specific answers to ques-tions posed—obligation on districtcourt where no alternative modeof trial provided—nature of sum-mary jurisdiction—role ofOireachtas in determining whetheroffence minor or not—whethertheory of inoperative provisionvalid—Constitution of Ireland1937, arts 34.3.2, 38.5—Courts(Supplemental Provisions) Act,1961, s52—Road Traffic Acts1961-1994.Held: In the case of a criminaloffence where summary trial onlywas provided for, any challengeby a judge of the district courtto the mode of trial must neces-sarily be an attack on the con-stitutionality of the enactment,and a judge of the district courtwas not entitled to state a caseto the high court questioning theconstitutional validity of a statu-tory provision.

Dr James Barry v Supt.Thomas Waldron (CarneyJ), 23 May 1996Detention—habeas corpus—rightof access to solicitor—applicantarrested and detained under s4,Criminal Justice Act, 1984—enquiry under art 40.4.2 of theConstitution—whether detentionunlawful—whether detainee enti-tled to access to solicitor duringentire detention period—costs ofapplication — Constitution ofIreland 1937, art 40.4.2—Criminal Justice Act, 1984, s4.Held: The right of a person underarrest to have reasonable accessto a solicitor does not include aright to have a solicitor presentthroughout the entire period of thedetention.

CONSUMER

Maximum Prices(Magazines) (Revocation)Order, 1996 (SI no 307 of1996)This order revokes the MaximumPrices (Magazines) Order, 1996(See also (1996) 14 ILT 219) whichhad provided for controls on theprices of magazines priced in ster-ling.)

Consumer Credit Act,1995 (Section 2) (No 2)Regulations 1996 (SI no369 of 1996)These regulations further supple-ment the definition of ‘credit insti-tution’ contained in s2(1) of theConsumer Credit Act, 1995.

CRIMINAL

Criminal Assets BureauAct, 1996 (no 31 of 1996)This Act was signed by thePresident on 11 October 1996. (Seealso (1996) 14 ILT 220.)

Criminal Assets BureauAct, 1996 (EstablishmentDay) Order 1996 (SI no310 of 1996)This order appointed 15 October1996 as the establishment day ofthe Criminal Assets Bureau for thepurposes of the Criminal AssetsBureau Act, 1996.

Sexual Offences(Jurisdiction) Bill, 1995This Bill has been amended in theSelect Committee on Legislationand Security. (See also (1995) 13ILT 202.)

Criminal Justice(MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill, 1996This Bill has been passed by DailÉireann. (See also (1996) 14 ILT220.)

People (DPP) v JerryO’Shea (Court of CriminalAppeal), 1 July 1996Appeal—importation of drugs—arrest by customs officer—techni-cal breach of 1987 regulations—member in charge—detention notrendered invalid—Customs Misc-ellaneous Provisions Act, 1988,s2—Customs Consolidation Act1876, s186—Misuse of Drugs Act,1977, ss15, 25—Criminal JusticeAct, 1984, ss3, 4, 7—CriminalJustice Act, 1984 (Treatment ofPersons in Custody in GardaSíochána Stations) Regulations1987, reg 4.Held: A technical breach of the1987 regulations, which did notresult in the applicant receiving

26 Upper Ormond Quay Dublin 7 IrelandTelephone 01-873 1555 Facsimile 01-873 1876

Another Essential Text fromButterworths...

Kelleher & Murray:InformationTechnology Law inIreland

by Denis Kelleher & Karen Murray

NOW IS THE TIME TO KEEP FULLY UP-TO-DATE WITH

ALL THE NEW CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS

NEW AND IMPORTANT AREA OF LAW

Features:•Explains how computer misuse, such as hacking

and viruses, occurs and the Criminal Damage

Act 1991 is examined in this regard

•Discusses the Data Protection Act 1988 in

relation to computers and privacy

•Covers computer fraud and its implications

•A section on intellectual property covers

copyright protection, licences, trademarks, the

patenting of programs and confidential

information

KELLEHER & MURRAY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW IN IRELANDPublication Date: March 1997 ISBN 1 85475 825 X Price: £50.00

For more information contact:


any unfair treatment or being inany way prejudiced, did not ren-der the detention of the applicantunlawful.

People (DPP) v FrancisShortt (Court of CriminalAppeal), 23 July 1996Appeal—knowingly permitting thesale of drugs—issues of fact areissues for jury—charge to jury—reasonable doubt—not necessaryto compare civil and criminal onusof proof—sworn evidence givento obtain search warrant—searchwarrant valid—issues not raised intrial not proper issues for appeal—leave to appeal refused—Misuseof Drugs Act ,1977, ss3, 19, 29.Held: Issues of fact are issues forthe jury and not for the Court ofAppeal particularly when theseissues were not raised by thedefence during the trial.

People (DPP) v EamonnKelly (Court of CriminalAppeal), 11 July 1996Appeal—point of law of excep-tional public importance—pointmust have arisen before Court ofCriminal Appeal—point formed nopart of judgment—abstract point—certificate refused—Courts ofJustice Act, 1924, s29Held: Before the Court of CriminalAppeal can give a certificate unders29, it must be satisfied that thepoint arose before the Court ofCriminal Appeal and was involvedin its decision.

People (DPP) v ThomasJohnston (Court ofCriminal Appeal), 1 July1996Criminal law—appeal—mans-laughter—life sentence reduced to12 years—judgment of court stat-ed that co-accused not found guiltyof manslaughter—factually incor-rect—co-accused sentenced to fouryears for manslaughter—factualerror constitutes a newly discov-ered fact—review of sentence—failure to show sentence excessiveor inappropriate—co-accused’slenient sentence not a proper rea-son to vary applicant's sentence—review of sentence refused—Criminal Procedure Act,1993, s2Held: The fact that a co-accused

may have been dealt with tooleniently is not a proper reasonwhy a sentence should be varied.

Child Pornography Bill,1996This private member’s Bill, asintroduced by John O’Donoghueand Eoin Ryan, aims to make itan offence to make, distribute,possess or publish any indecentor pornographic images of a per-son under 16 years of age. Wherethe offence is committed by abody corporate and it is proventhat it occurred with the consent,connivance or neglect of anydirector, manager, secretary, otherofficer or person purporting toact in such a capacity, the Billwould make such person liableto prosecution for the offence aswell. The maximum penaltywould be a term of imprisonmentup to three years on convictionon indictment.

Decommissioning Bill,1996This Bill aims to give effect tothe report of the International Body(of 22 January 1996) by enablingthe Minister for Justice to makeregulations providing for thedecommissioning of arms usingfour methods identified in para 44of the report: the transfer of armsto a commission established bythe Irish and British governments;the provision of information to acommission leading to the dis-covery of arms; the depositing ofarms for subsequent collection anddestruction by a commission; andthe destruction of arms by thosein possession of them.

Criminal Justice Act,1994 (Commencement)Order 1996 (SI no 333 of1996)This order fixes 15 November1996 as the date on which PartsV and VII of the Criminal JusticeAct,1994 (together with the firstand second schedules) came intooperation. The parts of the Act inquestion relate respectively todrug trafficking offences at seaand international co-operation inthe confiscation of the proceedsof drug trafficking respectively.

Criminal Justice Act,1994 (Section 46(6))Regulations, 1996 (SI no343 of 1996)These regulations modify theCriminal Justice Act, 1994 for thepurpose of adapting to confisca-tion co-operation orders provisionsof the Act relating to confiscationorders.

DAMAGES

Patricia Cranny v RobertKelly and the MotorInsurers’ Bureau ofIreland (Lavan J), 5 April1996Plaintiff issued proceedings claim-ing defendant's negligence causedher husband's death in road traf-fic accident—defendant unin-sured—MIBI joined as co-defen-dant—whether deceased had in factbeen driving car—whetherdeceased was aware that vehiclewas uninsured—whether MIBIliable to satisfy judgment—CivilLiability Act, 1961.Held: The test to be applied whendetermining whether a person wasaware that the vehicle in whichthey were travelling was uninsured,was not whether a reasonable per-son would have known but whetherthe particular individual, havingregard to all the circumstanceswould have known.

EMPLOYMENT

Employment EqualityBill, 1996This Bill has been amended in theSelect Committee on SocialAffairs. (See also (1996) 14 ILT200.)

Organisation of WorkingTime Bill, 1996This Bill, as presented by theMinister for Enterprise andEmployment, aims to transposethe provisions of Directive93/104/EC (of 23 November1993) into law. Among its pro-posed provisions are: the limita-tion of the working week to anaverage of 48 net hours (with noprovision for workers to opt out

of this provision); the elimina-tion of zero hours contracts; aphased increase in the minimumannual holiday entitlement forfull-time workers to four weeksby April 1999; and the specify-ing of minimum rest periods (withspecial provisions for night work-ers) to which employees are enti-tled.

ENVIRONMENTAL

European Communities(Mechanically PropelledVehicle Emission Control)Regulations, 1996 (SI no318 of 1996)These regulations prevent the issueof first licences for certain newvehicles with effect from 1November 1996 unless the vehi-cles conform to the air pollutantemission control requirements ofCouncil Directive 96/1/EC (of 17February 1996).

Litter Pollution Bill, 1996This Bill, as presented by theMinister for the Environment,aims to enable a more effectivesystem for the prevention and con-trol of litter. The provisions of theBill include: imposing a duty onoccupiers of property adjoining aroad in a restricted speed limitarea to keep adjoining footpathsfree of litter; empowering localauthorities to require owners andoccupiers to remedy actual litter-ing and to take specified action toprevent possible littering; requir-ing each local authority to pre-pare a litter management plan; pro-hibiting the placing of unsolicit-ed advertising material on wind-screens; requiring promoters andorganisers of large events to pre-vent litter during the event and toclean up afterwards; obliging oper-ators of mobile food outlets toprovide litter bins and to keep thevicinity of their outlets clear oflitter; and the creation of anoffence of failing to clean up aftera dog has fouled a public place.Under the proposed legislation,gardaí would be given the powerto issue on-the-spot fines.Maximum fines would beincreased to £1,500.

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


BJM v CM (Flood J), 31July 1996Marital breakdown—petition fornullity—parties had no sexual con-tact before marriage—respondenthad been badly burned as smallchild—extensive scarring overwhole front of torso—petitionerwas not aware of disfigurementuntil honeymoon—whether peti-tioner's consent to marriage wasapparent rather than real as it wasnot a full, free and informed con-sent—whether parties had capac-ity to enter into and sustain a nor-mal marital relationship with eachother by reason of their respectivestates of mind.Held: When determining whethergrounds exist to declare a mar-riage null and void, the Court musthave regard to whether an emo-tional and psychological relation-ship has been created between theparties.

Family Law (Divorce) Act,1996This Act was signed by thePresident on 27 November 1996.(See also (1996) 14 ILT 201.)

Bernadette Ennis v ColmButterly (Kelly J), 26 July1996Striking out pleadings—court'sinherent jurisdiction to stay pro-ceedings—principles to beapplied—assumption where con-flict between matters averred byplaintiff and defendant on affi-davit—plaintiff claiming dam-ages—breach of contract, negli-gent misrepresentation, fraudulentmisrepresentation—parties cohab-iting—nature of contract the breachof which alleged—agreement tomarry—agreement to cohabitpending marriage in considerationof which plaintiff to give up busi-ness and live as home-maker—legislative abolition of action forbreach of promise to marry—whether fatal to plaintiff’s claim—whether agreement to marry unen-forceable as contrary to public pol-icy—agreement to cohabit—con-sideration—whether claim for ‘pal-imony’—whether concept recog-nised in this jurisdiction—specialposition of marriage under theConstitution—whether plaintiff’s

claim for damages for breach ofcontract should be struck out—nature of claim for damages formisrepresentation—elements nec-essary for common-law action ofdeceit—whether criteria met byplaintiff’s claim—claim that defen-dant represented that plaintiffwould become director and share-holder—plaintiff relinquishing herbusiness and living as home-maker—claim in tort—whetherclaim could be separated fromalleged contractual arrange-ments—whether claim based onalleged tortious wrong should beallowed to go to trial—Rules ofthe Superior Courts 1986, O 19,rr 27, 28.Held: The enactment of the FamilyLaw Act, 1981, abolishing theaction for breach of promise tomarry, was fatal to any claim assert-ed by a plaintiff to derive from thebreach by the defendant of an agree-ment to marry her. Even before theenactment of the 1981 Act, theiragreement to marry would havebeen unenforceable as a matter ofpublic policy.

FISHERIES

Fisheries (Amendment)Bill, 1996This Bill, as presented by SenatorMaurice Manning, aims to intro-duce a new framework for thelicensing and regulation of aqua-culture. To this end, it would estab-lish an Aquaculture LicencesAppeals Board, provide for the reg-ulation of appeals and prescribepenalties for offences.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

European Communities(Construction Plant andEquipment) (PermissibleNoise Levels)(Amendment)Regulations, 1996 (SI no359 of 1996)These regulations give legal effectto Directive 95/27/EC (amendingDirective 86/662/EEC) on the lim-itation of noise emissions byhydraulic excavators, rope-operat-ed excavators, dozers, loaders and

excavator loaders the installedpower of which is below 500kW.These regulations came into oper-ation on 3 December 1996.

HEALTH SERVICES

Health (Amendment) Bill,1996This Bill has been passed by bothHouses of the Oireachtas. (Seealso (1996) 14 ILT 152.)

Health (Amendment) (No3) Act, 1996 (No 32 of1996)This Act was signed by thePresident on 6 November 1996.(See also (1996) 14 ILT 152.)

The Consultative Councilon Hepatitis C(Establishment) Order,1996 (SI no 339 of 1996)This order establishes a consulta-tive council to advise the Ministerfor Health on all aspects of hepati-tis C, either on its own initiativeor at the request of the Minister.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Allen & Hanbury Ltd &Anor v the Controller ofPatents, Designs andTrademarks & Anor(Carroll J), 21 February1996Copyright, designs and patents—patent—trial of point of law aspreliminary issue—plaintiffs own-ing patents in respect of pharma-ceutical licences—Controller ofPatents granting defendant licenceto exploit patent pursuant to s42of the Patents Act, 1964—plain-tiffs appealing to high court—whether Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of IntellectualProperty Rights precluding grantof licence—Patents Act,1964,ss42, 46(3), 77(2), 93—PatentsAct, 1992, ss5, 31, 63(3), sch 1,para 13—Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of IntellectualProperty, arts 27(1), 65(1), 65(6),70(1), 70(6)—Interpretation Act,1937, ss11, 22—Constitution ofIreland 1937, art 29.6.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Patrick McNamara v AnBord Pleanala & Ors (BarrJ), 31 July 1996Planning law—proposed referenceto European Court for opinion pur-suant to art 177 of treaty—refer-ence sought after final judgmentdelivered by national court—whether applicant entitled to ref-erence—whether time for seekingsuch a reference had expired—functions of European Court pur-suant to art 177 reference—whetheran application for a reference ismaintainable under art 177(3)where the national court has deliv-ered its final judgment on the issuesraised in the proceedings beforeit—EEC Treaty, art 177(3).Held: Rulings from the EuropeanCourt of Justice pursuant to appli-cations under art 177 were intend-ed for the benefit of national courtsin connection with the preparationof final judgments in cases beforesuch courts. Hence, once a nation-al court had delivered its final judg-ment, the question of a referenceto the European Court thereaftercould not arise.

FAMILY

Brian Brady & Ors v AnBord Uchtala, Ireland andthe Attorney General(Flood J), 12 April 1996Foreign adoption—recognition offoreign adoption—application forrecognition of adoptions effectedunder law of People's Republic ofChina—recognition refused by AnBord Uchtala—judicial review—whether adoption under law ofPeople's Republic of China havingessentially the same legal effect asadoption effected under law of theState—Adoption Act, 1952, ss9,24—Adoption Act, 1988—AdoptionAct, 1991, ss1, 6.Held: An adoption effected inaccordance with the law of thePeople's Republic of China hasessentially the same legal effect asan adoption effected by an adop-tion order under s9 of the AdoptionAct, 1952.


Held: Art. 70(6) of the Agreementon Trade Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights oblig-es the Controller of Patents,Designs and Trademarks to refusethe grant of compulsory licencespursuant to s.42 of the PatentsAct 1964 after the date on whichAgreement became known to theState.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

David Brien v JudgeThelma King & Ors, (BarrJ) 5 July 1996Extradition order—certiorarisought—whether police officer'sevidence gave rise to doubt as towhether decision had been takento prosecute applicant when war-rant had been applied for—whether decision to prosecuteapplicant was dependent on inter-rogation of applicant consequentupon proposed extradition—Extradition Act, 1965.Held: When hearing an applica-tion for an extradition order, theduty of a district judge is notrestricted to an enquiry as towhether the requirements laiddown by statute have been com-plied with, but also includes aduty to protect the constitution-al rights of the person againstwhom extradition had beensought.

Shane Dunne v Directorof Public Prosecutions(Carney J), 6 June 1996Order of prohibition sought—delay in executing warrant—whether in circumstances Gardaíhad taken reasonable steps to exe-cute warrant—whether delay hadbeen unconscionable and uncon-stitutionally unfair.Held: Members of the Gardaí towhom a warrant is issued for exe-cution must be accountable to thecourt which issued the warrantfor its prompt execution and, indefault of a prisoner being expe-ditiously produced, have an expla-nation for his non-production andfurnish an explanation of whatsteps were taken to bring abouthis apprehension.

Minister for the Environment,aims to provide for the establish-ment of a body to be known asthe Dublin Docklands Develop-ment Authority (in line with thebody proposed in the DublinDocklands Area Taskforce reportof 29 May 1996). The body wouldbe responsible: for economic andsocial regeneration in the DublinDocklands area; for improvementsin the area’s environment; and forthe continued development of thefinancial services sector in theCustom House Docks Area.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Criminal Justice (LegalAid) (Amendment)Regulations, 1996 (SI no311 of 1996)These regulations provide for thepayment of a fee of £350 to solic-itors who are assigned to excep-tional cases in the District Courtand appeals to the Circuit Court,where the Department of Justice,following consultation with theChief State Solicitor’s Office,decides that a particular case isexceptional. These regulationstake effect as if they had beenbrought into operation on 1 June1993.

Rules of the SuperiorCourts (No 2) of 1996 (SI no 377 of 1996)These rules make provision inregard to applications to the highcourt under the Air Pollution Act,1987. They came into operationon 1 January 1997.

Allied Irish Coal SuppliesLtd v Powell DuffrynInternational Fuels Ltd(Laffoy J), 19 July 1996Joinder of party as co-defendantto proceedings—principles to beapplied—court’s discretion—cor-porate veil—limitation ofactions—plaintiff issuing pro-ceedings in contract and tort in1984 seeking damages againstdefendant—subsequently seek-ing joinder of company as co-defendant to the proceedings—defendant a wholly-owned sub-sidiary of company—nature ofonus on plaintiff seeking to joinparty as co-defendant—whetherdefendant functioned as a sepa-rate legal and corporate entity tocompany or whether the two con-stituted a single economic enti-ty—whether useful purposeserved by joining a party whereclaim would be statute-barred—Statute of Limitations 1957—Rules of the Superior Courts 1986,O 15, rr 13, 14.Held: Even if a plaintiff had astateable case for the joinder ofa party as a co-defendant, thecourt would not order such join-der where, the claim against theparty being statute-barred, itwould serve no useful purpose todo so.

PRISONS

Prison (Disciplinary Codefor Officers) Rules, 1996(SI no 289 of 1996)These regulations, providing adisciplinary code for prison offi-cers, came into operation on 1October 1996.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Blessington & DistrictCommunity Council Ltd vWicklow County Council& Ors (Kelly J), 19 July1996Judicial review—validity of grantof planning permission—locusstandi—Constitution—‘substantialgrounds’—planning permissiongranted on 22 March 1995—appli-cation for leave to seek judicialreview started on 29 April 1996—whether newspaper notices ade-quate—whether time limit of twomonths repugnant toConstitution—whether applicanthaving locus standi—whetherapplicant having ‘substantialgrounds’ for contending decisioninvalid—meaning of ‘substantialgrounds’—Local Government(Planning and Development) Act,1963, s82 (3) (B) — Local Govern-ment (Planning and Development)Act, 1992, s19.Held: The primary purpose of anewspaper notice published in pur-suance of art 14 of the LocalGovernment (Planning andDevelopment) Regulations, 1977is to ensure that adequate notice isgiven to members of the public sothat they may make such repre-sentations or objections as they con-sider proper. Accordingly, trivialinaccuracies or omissions whichdo not mislead the public will notinvalidate such notices.

Dublin DocklandsDevelopment AuthorityBill, 1996This Bill, as presented by the

FED UP WITH FIREFIGHTING?Make the most of your time withTHE IMPLEMENTORA NEW PLANNING SYSTEM FROM PETER HANCOCK & CO, THE EXPERTS IN TIME MANAGEMENT

For more information on the Implementor or Hancock’s training programmes,

call 01 676 1955

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


Social Welfare (Code ofPractice on the Recoveryof Overpayments)Regulations, 1996 (SI no227 of 1996)These regulations bring into oper-ation a code of practice (set out inthe schedule to the regulations)which governs the repayment of alloverpayments of social welfarepayments. The code specifies theinformation to be made availableto an individual assessed with anoverpayment, the need to haveregard to that individual’s abilityto repay and the various methodsof recovery. The code also providesfor the circumstances in which thedeferral, suspension or reduction inrepayment may be considered.

Social Welfare (SocialWelfare Tribunal)Regulations, 1996 (SI no262 of 1996)These regulations provide for a tech-nical amendment to the time limitfor making an application for anadjudication to the Social WelfareTribunal arising from the amend-ment made in the Social WelfareAct, 1996, under which a personinvolved in a trade dispute mayappeal a disqualification for receiptof unemployment assistance or ben-efit without first having to appealthe deciding officer’s decision tothe Social Welfare Appeals Office.

Social Welfare Act, 1996(Part IV) (Commence-ment) Order 1996 (SI no296 of 1996)This order brings Part IV of theSocial Welfare Act, 1996 (whichprovides for the introduction of anew disability allowance replacingthe previous disabled person’s main-tenance allowance scheme) intooperation with effect from 2 October1996.

Social Welfare(Consolidated PaymentsProvisions) (Amendment)(No 6) Regulations 1996(SI no 297 of 1996)These regulations provide for theintroduction of a new scheme ofdisability allowance. These regu-lations came into operation on 2October 1996.

Social Welfare(ConsolidatedContributions andInsurability) Regulations1996 (SI no 312 of 1996)These regulations consolidateexisting regulatory provisionsrelating to: the payment and col-lection of employment contribu-tions; the payment of contribu-tions by self-employed and vol-untary contributors and optionalcontributions payable by share-fishermen; the crediting ofemployment contributions; therefund of contributions; modifi-cations of insurance; and a num-ber of miscellaneous provisionsrelating to insurability. These reg-ulations came into operation on1 November 1996.

TAXATION

Value Added Tax(Returns) Regulations,1996 (SI no 294 of 1996)These regulations require a tax-able person to supply the detailsrequested on the VAT returnissued to him or her under s19(3)of the Value Added Tax Act, 1972.Recent changes in VAT primarylaw permit traders who accountannually for VAT to align the peri-od covered by their annual VATreturn with their annual com-mercial accounting period. Forthese traders, this annual returncovers both the tax payment andthe associated trading details forthe period. Traders who accountfor their VAT bi-monthly mustalso make an annual return oftrading details and the regulationshave the effect of extending thesame flexibility as regards thisannual return to these traders.These regulations came into oper-ation on 1 September 1996 andrevoke and replace the ValueAdded Tax (Returns) Regulations,1993.

Finance Act, 1994(Commencement ofChapter 1 of Part II)(Excise Duty on Tobacco Products other than Cigarettes)

Order, 1996 (SI no 302 of 1996)This order brings the main pro-visions of the Finance Act, 1994relating to the use of tax stampsfor excise purposes with regardto tobacco products, other thancigarettes, into operation witheffect from 1 October 1996.

Finance (Excise Duty on Tobacco Products)Act, 1977 (Section 2A(5))Order, 1996 (SI no 303 of 1996)This order brings the main pro-visions of the Finance Act, 1994relating to the use of tax stampsfor excise purposes on roll-your-own tobacco packages into oper-ation with effect from 1 October1996. Certain provisions relatingto the same system will come intooperation on 1 April 1997.

Finance Act, 1993(Section 60) Regulations1996 (SI no 338 of 1996)These regulations prescribe thepersons who may have access torecords established under s60 ofthe Finance Act, 1993. These are:the Motor Insurers’ Bureau ofIreland; motor vehicle manufac-turers and distributors; healthboards; health and safety officers;the Office of the Director ofConsumer Affairs; and localauthorities.

Value Added Tax (Refund of Tax) (No 29)Order, 1996 (SI no 334 of 1996)This order provides relief fromVAT for certain goods and ser-vices purchased by accrediteddiplomatic personnel serving inIreland.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Telecommunications(MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill, 1996This Bill has been amended inthe Select Committee onEnterprise and Economic Strategyand passed by Dail Éireann. (Seealso (1996) 14 ILT 247.)

ROAD TRAFFIC

Road Traffic Act, 1961(Section 103) (Offences)Regulations 1996 (SI no319 of 1996)These regulations (replacing pre-vious regulations) declare theoffences to which s103 of the RoadTraffic Act, 1961 applies, includ-ing the offence of exceeding aspeed limit (to which s103 had notpreviously applied). They also pre-scribe the form of notice whichmay be attached to a vehicle orgiven to a person by a member ofthe Garda Síochána or authorisedperson who alleges that an offencehas been committed. They furtherprescribe the amounts which a per-son, who is liable to prosecution,may pay as an alternative to pros-ecution. These regulations cameinto operation on 1 December1996.

Road Traffic (Licensing of Drivers) (Amendment)Regulations, 1996 (SI no328 of 1996)These regulations provide that aperson who fails to comply withthe requirement to undergo a dri-ving test in order to obtain a thirdor subsequent provisional licencemay be issued with an additionalprovisional licence which will bevalid for only one year. If a dri-ving test is not undertaken duringthat year, a further provisionallicence will not be issued.

SOCIAL WELFARE

Social Welfare Act, 1996(Section 7)(Commencement) Order1996 (SI no 188 of 1996)This order brings s7 of the SocialWelfare Act, 1996 into operationwith effect from 10 June 1996.The section provides for the con-tinued payment of child depen-dant allowances, for up to 13weeks, to persons in receipt ofsuch increases at the full rate whohave been unemployed for 12months or more and who take upemployment which is expected tolast for at least four weeks.


RECENT TITLES FROM THE IRISH LAW PUBLISHER

For further information on our publications or to request a catalogue, please contact: Alison Caldwell, Marketing Executive, Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, 4 Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin 7. Tel. (01) 873 0101 Fax. (01) 872 0078

The Licensing Acts 1833-1995CONSTANCE CASSIDY

Without question, this book is already theauthentic textbook to which the current legalprofession and the future students of the lawwill refer. Thomas D. Shaw, past Presidentof the Law Society of Ireland

Hardback £150.00ISBN 1 899738 11 8 August 1996

Annual Review of Irish Law RAYMOND BYRNE & WILLIAM

BINCHY

...an extraordinary book: I cannot think thatit has any parallel...It brings the reader upto date with new developments in everyaspect of Irish law. The quality and depth ofthe commentaries are excellent. New LawJournal

1994 Volume Hardback £85.00ISBN 1 85800 075 0 December1996Other volumes available cover 1987-1993

Irish Planning Law and ProcedureEAMON GALLIGAN

Extensive coverage of planning regulations,appeals and enforcement procedures, includ-ing recent changes, with a practical guide toplanning and conveyancing practice.

Hardback £65.00ISBN 1 85800 028 9 December 1996

Commercial Secrets: The Action for Breach of

Confidence in IrelandPAUL LAVERY

An analysis of the action of breach of confi-dence and its application to the protection ofcommercial and non-personal secrets, andthe effectiveness of such protection. Includesuseful sections on patent; copyright; enter-tainment/media law; and the employer/employee relationship.

Paperback £45.00ISBN 1 899738 39 8 November 1996

Criminal Chaos: Seven Crises in Irish Criminal Justice

PAUL O’MAHONY

A penetrating analysis of the roots of thecurrent crime problem, and of the multiplecrises in the social and criminal justice sys-tem responses to crime.

Paperback £12.95ISBN 1 899738 40 1 November 1996

Sexual Offences: Law, Policy and Punishment

THOMAS O’MALLEY

The law governing sexual offences hasundergone profound changes. This bookoffers comprehensive coverage of thescope of sexual offences and changes intrial procedures and evidentiary require-ments, as well as sentencing practice andprocedure.

Paperback £45.00ISBN 1 899738 34 7 October 1996

will, but if there was a challengeto a will based on the state ofknowledge or health of the tes-tator, the onus was on the per-son who challenged the will.There was a presumption of dueexecution and of testamentarycapacity where a will was for-mally valid.

John O’Dwyer & Anor vThomas Keegan & Ors(Kelly J), 12 July 1996Testacy—surviving spouse—tes-tator leaving no share in estate tosurviving spouse—survivingspouse dying having made noclaim to share in estate of testa-tor—whether half share in estatevesting in surviving spouse ondeath of testator by virtue of theSuccession Act, 1965—SuccessionAct, 1965, s111(1)Held: Section 111(1) of theSuccession Act, 1965 confers apersonal right, exercisable at hisdiscretion, on a surviving spouseto acquire one half of the estateof the testator. Where the surviv-ing spouse dies without exercis-ing this right, his estate does notbenefit under s111(1).

of the premises but whether thefixture's connection with thepremises was of a permanent orsemi-permanent nature.

WILLS

Iris Blackall v RoseBlackall & Ors (McCrackenJ), 28 June 1996Will—formalities—whether willvalidly executed—capacity—whether deceased knew andapproved of will’s contents andwas of sound mind, memory andunderstanding—onus of provingformal validity—onus where chal-lenge to will based on the state ofknowledge or health of the testa-tor—presumption of due execu-tion and of testamentary capaci-ty—elderly testatrix—will exe-cuted in 1966—will executed in1976—specific revocationclause—whether 1976 will her lastwill and testament—whether ear-lier will revoked—Succession Act,1965, s78.Held: The onus of proving theformal validity of a will was onthe person who propounded the

TORT

Sean Hussey v FrancisJoseph Plunkett Dillon &Ors practising under thename and style ofGerrard Scallan &O’Brien Solicitors(Supreme Court), 26June 1996Negligence—solicitor/client rela-tionship—alleged professionalnegligence—bankruptcy proceed-ings—action for damages dis-missed in High Court—appeal toSupreme Court—standard of dutyexpected of solicitor—whethersolicitor breached that duty—whether plaintiff entitled to suc-ceed in action for damages—whether action to be dismissed—Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act1857, s128—Bankruptcy Act,1988.Held: If solicitors were requiredto conduct company officesearches to try and detect changesof names of companies and thelike in every bankruptcy pro-ceeding in which the petitionerwas a company, it would addgreatly and, in the opinion of the

court, unnecessarily to the costsof such proceedings.

Civil Liability(Amendment) Bill, 1996This Bill has been amended in theSelect Committee on Legislationand Security. (See also (1996) 14ILT 202.) The committee has raisedthe proposed new maximum levelof compensation to £20,000.

VALUATION

PWA International Ltd vCommissioner ofValuation (Carroll J), 26July 1996Whether item rateable—test to beapplied—case stated by ValuationTribunal for opinion of highcourt—whether the fixture’s con-nection with the premises was ofa permanent or semi-permanentnature—Rateable Property(Ireland) Amendment Act 1860—Valuation Act, 1986—ValuationAct, 1988, s5.Held: In deciding whether a cer-tain item was rateable, whetherfixed or not, the test was notwhether it contributed to the value G

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


Mrs Y acquired an Irish domi-cile of choice in 1992 by

becoming resident here and hav-ing an intention to reside here forthe remainder of her lifetime. In1996, Mr and Mrs Y entered intoa deed of separation. Mrs Y hasassets of approximately £500,000.Mr and Mrs Y have one child (adaughter) aged 20 years of agewho is resident, ordinarily resi-dent and domiciled in the UK.

Should Mrs Y retain her Irishdomicile of choice, a liability toIrish inheritance tax will arise onher death, based on her worldwideassets and amounting to approxi-mately £118,000.

In the event of Mrs Y relin-quishing her Irish domicile ofchoice by ceasing to be residenthere and ceasing to have any inten-tion to reside here for the remain-der of her lifetime, then her domi-cile of origin in England and Waleswill revive and on her death a lia-bility to UK inheritance tax willarise amounting to stg £120,000approximately.

Clearly, as Mrs Y is 50 yearsof age, the prospect of her revert-ing to her domicile of origin inEngland and Wales at some timein the future cannot be ignored.Prudent tax legal advice will bearthis possibility in mind, howeverremote it might appear at the pre-sent time.

Jersey resident discretionary trustMrs Y should be advised that itis possible to mitigate the inheri-tance tax charge in Ireland (domi-cile of choice) and/or eliminate

the potential inheritance tax chargein the UK (domicile of origin) bycreating a Jersey discretionarytrust.

The Jersey discretionary trustshould be created by Mrs Y whileshe retains her Irish domicile ofchoice and would include a lifeinterest in her favour with theobjects of the trust being a classof individuals including her daugh-ter. Mrs Y should be advised toexecute a will which would con-tain a power of appointment inrelation to the trust assets. A dis-cretionary trust is outside the scopeof discretionary trust tax as intro-duced by section 106, Finance Act,1984, where an interest in pos-session is created by will or intervivos disposition.

Position under UK lawUnder UK law, such a trust isknown as an ‘excluded property’settlement for UK inheritance taxpurposes. Section 48(3) UKCapital Transfer Tax Act 1984 pro-vides that settled property isexcluded property if:1) The settlor was not domiciled

in the UK at the time she madethe settlement

2) The property is not situated inthe UK.

However, the effect of an exclud-ed property settlement can be nul-lified if the settlor is regarded ashaving a deemed UK domicile.

In this regard, section 267 ofUK Capital Transfer Tax Act 1984provides that a person not domi-ciled in the UK at any time shallbe treated for the purposes of the

Act as domiciled in the UK at thetime if:a) She was domiciled in the UK

within three years immediatelypreceding the relevant time, or

b) She was resident in the UK innot less than 17 of the 20 yearsof assessment, ending with theyear of assessment in which therelevant time falls.

Mrs Y, on the facts, will not beregarded as having a ‘deemed’ UKdomicile. However, she must retainher domicile of choice in Ireland.Even if she is not resident here,as long as she intends to residepermanently here her domicile ofchoice will prevail (Doucet vGeoghegan, Court of Appeal, 28June 1878).

The trustees of the Jersey dis-cretionary trust will considerinvesting in UK and Irish StockExchange securities which will beheld by a Jersey resident compa-ny controlled by the Jersey resi-dent trustees. For example,£180,000 might be invested in theJersey company for onward invest-ment in the aforementioned UKand Irish securities. The balanceof £320,000 could be invested in,say, Irish Government ForeignLoan 73/4 DM public bond issuedue October 2002 by the trusteesand not treated as a Jersey com-pany asset.

In this regard, the capital gainstax implications of realising anygains on the trust investments willhave to be considered.

UK capital gains taxSchedule 16, paragraph 2 of the

UK Finance Act 1991 charges asettlor to capital gains tax inrespect of capital gains arising toa non-resident trust created on orafter 19 March 1991. However,the charge does not apply in a par-ticular year of assessment if thesettlor is not domiciled in the UKat any time in that year of assess-ment. Accordingly, capital pay-ments can be made free of capi-tal gains tax to UK resident ben-eficiaries if the settlor of a non-resident trust was, when she madethe settlement and continues to bein each year of assessment, domi-ciled outside the UK. Clearly, thiswill benefit Mrs Y’s daughter, whois resident in the UK.

Jersey capital gains taxThe trustees of the Jersey discre-tionary trust who are resident inJersey will not have any capitalgains tax liability to discharge ondisposal of any of the trust assetsas capital gains tax does not existunder the laws of the States ofJersey.

Irish capital gains taxSection 37 of the Irish CapitalGains Tax Act, 1975, whichcharges to Irish capital gains taxany gains arising in non-residenttrusts where any beneficiary underthe settlement is domiciled andeither resident or ordinarily resi-dent in the State, will not applybecause the principal object of theJersey discretionary trust is resi-dent, ordinarily resident and domi-ciled in England and Wales, andas long as the settlor remains non-resident in the State.

Tax commentary

Domicile and tax planning

Compiled by the Taxation Committee


However, a chargeable gainattributable to a foreign discre-tionary trust is proportionatelyattributed to the Irish resident ben-eficiaries by reference to the dis-cretionary payments made to thebeneficiaries in the preceding fiveyears.

UK inheritance tax perspective.Assuming that at some time in thefuture Mrs Y ceases to retain anintention to reside in Ireland for theremainder of her lifetime and ceas-es to be resident here, her domicileof origin will revive.

On her death she would have adomicile of origin in England andWales and there would not be anyliability to UK inheritance tax as allher assets are now situated in a Jerseydiscretionary trust which was cre-ated when Mrs Y had a domicileother than that of England and Wales.

However, the Labour Party inEngland may review the concept ofdomicile should it be returned topower in the next election.

The domicile of the Jersey dis-cretionary trust is fixed at date ofcreation of the trust and the trustassets are excluded property for UKinheritance tax purposes. Had MrsY not set up the Jersey discretionarytrust or was regarded as having hada ‘deemed’ domicile in England andWales when she set up the Jerseydiscretionary trust, then (assumingthe value of the assets had remainedat £500,000) a liability to UK inher-itance tax of stg£120,000 wouldarise on her death.

Jersey inheritance tax per-spective. Jersey has not intro-

Double taxationagreement

between Irelandand the UK

When a person leaving anestate (the ‘disponer’) dies

domiciled in Ireland, and the estatecontains foreign assets, the gener-al treatment is to allow any for-eign tax paid as an expense of theestate rather than as a credit againstthe tax. The double taxation agree-ments provide for a system of cred-its against the tax paid. Ireland hasdouble taxation agreements withboth the UK and the United Statesbut as both agreements operatequite differently, this article con-siders the effect of the UK agree-ment only.

The main impact of UK inher-itance tax on the estate of an Irish-domiciled disponer is that a lia-bility to UK tax may arise if thevalue of the UK assets exceeds£200,000 (£150,000 prior to 6 April1996). When this limit is exceed-ed, the balance of UK assets aretaxed at a flat rate of 40%.

The effect of the UK doubletaxation agreement is to providefor a credit where the same prop-erty is taxed on the same event inboth countries. Article 8 of theagreement provides that where anIrish estate contains property sit-

uated in the UK, Ireland must givea credit for the tax paid in the UK.The credit is given at the lower ofthe effective rates of tax payablein both countries. This is bestexplained by way of an example.

Example 1Total estate ....................£900,000Irish assets .....................£550,000UK assets.......................£350,000The estate is to be divided equal-ly between two children.

Irish tax. Each child has a tax-free threshold of £182,550, result-ing in a total liability on each childto inheritance tax of £101,980 –an effective rate of 22.66%.

UK tax. The UK estate is taxedat 40% on the excess over£200,000, giving rise to UK taxas follows: £150,000 at 40%:£60,000 – an effective rate of17.14%.

Under the double taxationagreement legislation, a credit isgiven in Ireland for tax paid in theUK at the lower of the effectiverates. In this instance, the lowereffective rate is 17.14% and there-fore a full credit for the tax paidin the UK (£350,000 at 17.14%:

Doyle Court ReportersPrincipal: Áine O’Farrell

Court, Conference, AGMs, Business Meetings, Arbitrations. Verbatim Reporting - Daily Transcripts

Personal Injury Judgements for Trinity & Michaelmas 1996 Now Ready

We have pleasure in informing practitioners that we are now able to provide “Realtime Translation”,

a system which allows hearing impaired persons to follow Court Proceedings on a computer screen.

Call us for further details.

2, Arran Quay, Dublin 7. Tel: 872 2833 or 286 2097 (After Hours) Fax: 872 4486

EXCELLENCE IN REPORTING SINCE 1954

BRIEFINGBRIEFING

G

duced any inheritance tax legis-lation.

Irish inheritance tax perspec-tive. Assuming as of the date ofher death that Mrs Y was not domi-ciled in Ireland and did not haveany Irish assets, a charge to Irishcapital acquisitions tax arising onher death does not arise.

With regard to the £180,000invested in the Jersey company (andindirectly in Irish and UK StockExchange investments), the valueof the Jersey company shares wouldbe liable to Irish CAT at its mar-ket value at the date of Mrs Y’sdeath should she die domiciled inIreland. However, the £182,000CAT threshold (parent to child) asindexed would be deducted fromthe market value of the Jersey com-pany shares, thereby reducing thevalue for inheritance tax purposes.

Furthermore, if she died domi-ciled in Ireland, the £320,000invested in Irish GovernmentForeign Loans 73/4% DM publicbond issue due October 2002 wouldpass to a non-resident, non-ordi-narily resident and non-domiciledbeneficiary and would be exemptfrom inheritance tax provided thatthe conditions contained in section57 of the 1976 Act are adhered to.

It is evident from the above thatinheritance tax and capital gainstax savings can be achieved by care-ful analysis of changes in domicileand its interaction with internationaltax law.

Eamonn O Connor AITI is a solic-itor with Reeves.

BRIEFINGBRIEFING


£60,000) is available. The finaltax payable is: Irish tax – £143,960;UK tax – £60,000.

But consider the followingexample.

Example 2Total estate ....................£900,000Irish assets .....................£450,000UK assets.......................£450,000The estate is to be divided equal-ly between three children.

Irish tax. Each child has a tax-free threshold of £182,550, result-ing in a total liability on eachchild to inheritance tax of £41,980– an effective rate of 13.99%.

UK tax. In this example£250,000 (the excess over£200,000) is taxable at 40%, giv-ing rise to a liability of £100,000– an effective rate of 22.22%. Asthe credit for the UK tax givenagainst the Irish liability is at thelower of the effective rates, thecredit available is therefore£62,955 (£450,000 at 13.99%).

The tax payable is therefore:Irish tax – £62,985; UK tax –£100,000.

Because of the operation of theeffective rates, full relief for thetax paid in the UK will not alwaysbe available and this should beborne in mind when advising aclient.

A further point to note is thatunder the double taxation agree-ment the credit is available onlyto the person who pays the tax.As the UK tax is a tax on theestate, it is usually the residuary

legatee who bears the liability. Theone exception to this is where aspecific bequest of foreign prop-erty is made. In this situation, thatproperty which is the subject ofthe specific bequest will bear itsproportionate share of the UK tax.A credit tax for that tax is thenavailable to the beneficiary. Wherea disponer proposes making a spe-cific bequest of foreign property,it is very important to look at theeffect of the double taxation agree-ment on that bequest. The impor-tance of doing so is illustrated bythe comparison in Examples 3and 4.

Example 3Total estate.................£1,000,000Irish property ............... £640,000UK property ................. £360,000The Irish property is dividedequally between two sons and theUK property is to be divided equal-ly between two daughters.

Irish tax. Each son receives abenefit of £320,000 which, allow-ing for a threshold of £182,550,gives rise to a tax liability of£49,980 each. Each daughterreceives a benefit of £180,000which, allowing for a thresholdof £182,550, does not give rise toa tax liability. The total Irish taxis therefore £99,960, or £49,980from each son.

UK tax. As the UK assetsexceed £200,000 by £160,000, UKtax of £64,000 (£160,000 at 40%)is payable. The credit is availableto the recipients of the specific

bequests of the UK property (thetwo daughters) against their Irishinheritance tax liability at thelower of the effective rates.However, the lower effective rateis 0% as no Irish tax is payableby the daughters and, as such, thebenefit of the credit is lost – thatis, the full Irish liability and thefull UK liability is payable.

The tax payable is therefore:Irish tax – £99,960; UK tax –£64,000; making a total of£163,960.

If it had been specified that thetwo sons should take the Englishassets as part of their inheritance,the final liability would be quitedifferent. Consider the followingexample which has the same factsas Example 3 except that it hasbeen provided that the sons takethe UK assets as part of their ben-efits.

Example 4Irish tax. Each son takes a ben-efit of £320,000, which consistsof £140,000 Irish assets and£180,000 UK assets, giving riseto inheritance tax liability of£49,980 each. This results in aneffective rate of 15.618% and atotal Irish liability of £99,960.

UK tax. The tax on the UKassets remains at £64,000 – aneffective rate of 17.78%. But inthis example the sons take the UKassets as part of their benefit and,as such, a credit for the UK taxis available to them at the lowerof the effective rates. In this

instance a credit of £28,113(£180,000 at 15.618%) is avail-able to each son against his Irishliability, giving rise to a final taxposition as follows: Irish tax –£43,734; UK tax – £64,000; mak-ing a total of £107,734.

A saving of £56,226 has beenachieved by dividing the estate totakemaximum advantage of theUKdouble taxation agreement.

A form has been specificallydesigned by the RevenueCommissioners to calculate thecredits available, and Example 4above has been set out on the formfor illustration purposes.

The following points should benoted:● No credit is given for any inter-

est or penalties paid in the UK● UK tax is charged on the valua-

tion as of the date of death, andthese valuations should be usedin calculating the UK tax

● The tax threshold available inthe UK is to increase from 6April 1997.

The UK Capital Taxes Office hasadvised that a series of publica-tions on UK capital taxes hasrecently been published and isavailable from the Capital TaxesOffice of the Inland Revenue,Ferrers House, PO Box 38, CastleMeadow Road, Nottingham NG21BB, England (tel: 0044 115 9740000).

Orla Barry-Murphy is a solicitorwith Mason Hayes Curran.

CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS TAX SELF-ASSESSMENT FORMCredits under the double taxation agreement between Ireland and the UK

Beneficiary(whether or

not chargeable

to CAT)

Value ofbenefit

IR£

Value of UKproperty in

(b)IR£

Amount of UKtax

on (c)IR£

Rate of UKtax

(d) (c)

Amount ofCAT on

(b)IR£

Rate ofCAT

(f)(b)

Credit

IR£

Beneficiaryto whomcredit is

given

Net CATpayable

IR£

Son 1

Son 2

Daughter 1

Daughter 2

320,000

320,000

180,000

180,000

180,000

180,000

nil

nil

32,000

32,000

nil

nil

17.78%

17.78%

n/a

n/a

49,980

49,980

nil

nil

15.618%

15.618%

nil

nil

28,113

28,113

nil

nil

Son 1

Son 2

n/a

n/a

21,867

21,867

nil

nil

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

G

x 100 x 100

DIARYDIARY


Diarydates

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

Contact: Barbara Joyce, 01 671 0711

Family Law Lecture SeriesTopic: Lecture 1, Judicialseparation and ancillary ordersSpeakers: Mary Griffin,

David BerginDate: 5 FebruaryVenue: Blackhall Place

Topic: Lecture 2, Financialissues (capital-related issues)Speakers: Muriel Walls, EugeneDavy, Stephanie CoggansDate: 12 FebruaryVenue: Blackhall Place

Topic: Lecture 3, Financialissues (income-related issues)Speakers: Brian Gallagher,Gerard Durcan, SCDate: 19 February Venue: Blackhall Place

Topic: Lecture 4, District courtapplicationsSpeakers: Joan O’Mahony,Rosemary HorganDate: 26 FebruaryVenue: Blackhall Place

Topic: Lecture 5, Preparation of a caseSpeakers: Mary Hayes, George GillDate: 5 MarchVenue: Blackhall Place

Topic: Lecture 6, Divorcelegislation

CONFERENCES

Law Society Annual ConferenceDate: 3-6 AprilVenue: BarcelonaSpeakers: Matthew Moore,consultant; Ramon Mullerat, PastPresident, CCBE; Rocco Caira,Solicitor, BilbaoContact: Mary Kinsella on01 671 0711

The 1997 Woman LawyerConferenceDate: 12 AprilVenue: New Connaught Rooms,Covent Garden, LondonSpeakers: Tony Girling, President,UK Law Society; Robert OwenQC, Chairman, UK Bar Council;Lord Woolf, Master of theRollsContact: Blair Communications &Marketing (tel: 0044 171 7229731, fax: 0044 171 586 0639)

Burren Law SchoolTopic: The poet and the media inIrish law – a Brehon perspectiveDate: 18-20 AprilVenue: Newtown Castle,Ballyvaughan, Co ClareContact: Mary Greene on 065 77200

REGISTRATION FORM

Name of applicant Name of firm

Phone number (Office) (Home)

I would like a twin double room sharing with

in Dundrum House Rectory House Hotel B&B

I would like to avail of the vegetarian option at the Banquet Dinner

I accept the conditions of registration set out above including the exclusion of liability on the part of the SYS.

(Signature of applicant)

Please send this form and a cheque/postal order in favour of the Society of Young Solicitors to: Walter Beatty, SYS Conference, Vincent & Beatty, 67 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2, DDE 26.

The Spring Conference of the SYS will be held in Dundrum House Hotel, a magnificent country house built in 1730. Set in rolling parkland, Dundrum House boasts an 18-hole golf course, designed by Philip Walton, and modern conference facilities

SOCIETY OF YOUNG SOLICITORS’ SPRING CONFERENCE 199721– 23 March, Dundrum House Hotel, Tipperary

CONDITIONS: 1) Conference fee for Dundrum House is £119 per person; conference fee for Rectory House Hotel is £114 pp; at local B&B, £89pp. Depending on demand, single rooms may become availableat an extra cost. 2) No booking will be accepted without payment of the conference fee. Any cancellations must be notified by 7 March 1997 and no refunds will be given after that date. 3) The SYS will not beliable for any loss, damage or personal injury sustained by any delegate at the conference.

Lectures on Saturday 10.30am to 13.00pmThe enduring problem of powers of attorney, John Costello, solicitor, Eugene F CollinsMoney laundering, reporting and the law, Robert Hennessey, solicitor, Legal and Compliance Manager, AIG Asset ManagementPresentation on pension settlements, John D McCarthy, Actuary, Pension Settlements BureauArbitration: a viable alternative? Brian Hutchinson BL, Lecturer in UCD

Weekend rate includes lectures, registration fee, Fridayand Saturday night accommodation, green fees, BanquetDinner on Saturday evening, band and disco and (for thosestaying in Dundrum House) late brunch on Sunday. Furtheraccommodation is available in a nearby hotel and B&Bs.

Speakers: Mary O’Toole, BL,Brian GallagherDate: 12 MarchVenue: Blackhall Place

SEMINARS

Arbitration seminars organ-ised by the ArbitrationCommittee in association withthe Younger Members’Committee

Topic: ArbitrationDate: 25 March morningSpeakers include:Timothy Bouchier-Hayes, Gary Byrne, Michael Carrigan,Eamonn Gill, Bernard Gogarty, Kevin Kelly, Robert Connon.Venue: Presidents’ Hall, Blackhall PlaceContact: Mary Lynch, LawSociety

Topic: ArbitrationDate: 10 April afternoonVenue: Jurys Hotel, WesternRoad, CorkSpeakers: See Dublin seminarContact: Mary Lynch, LawSociety


PEOPLE AND PLACESPEOPLE AND PLACES

Every picture tells a story

The firm of Pierse & Fitzgibbon,Listowel, has had a mural paintedin its offices which has caused veryconsiderable interest. Many notable

figures in the town are shown inthe mural, including

John B Keane (third left) and BrianMcMahon (right foreground), as

well as the partners and staff of the firm. The inset shows

the artist, Olive Stack, with RobertPierse and the Tanaiste,

Dick Spring, TD

Council of the Law Society 1996/97

(Front row, l-r) Patrick A Glynn, Past President; Gerard Doherty; Elma Lynch, Junior Vice-President; Laurence K Shields, Senior Vice-President; Francis D Daly,President; Ken Murphy, Director General; Brian Sheridan; John Costello; Moya Quinlan, Past President. (Second row, l-r) Gerry Griffin; Fionnuala Breen-Walsh;

Ruadhan Killeen; Orla Coyne; Michael V O’Mahony, Past President; Martin Harvey; Patricia McNamara; Sean Durcan; Eamon O’Brien; Geraldine Clark; NiallFarrell; Hugh O’Neill. (Third row, l-r) Owen Binchy; John Fish; Keenan Johnson; John Dillon-Leetch; John Harte; Philip Joyce; Niall Casey; John Shaw; Paul

Connellan; Richard Barret; Raymond Monahan, Past President. (Back row l-r) Michael Irvine; Terence McCrann; Ward McEllin; Andrew F Smyth, Past President;Michael Peart; James McGuill; Donald Binchy; James McCourt; Anthony Ensor; Eamon O’Brien

Pictured at the dinner in honour of out-going President, Andrew F Smyth,were (back row, l-r) His Honour Judge Frank O’Donnell, Michael V

O’Mahony, Donal G Binchy, Bruce St John Blake, Adrian P Bourke, LaurenceCullen, Ernest Margetson, Thomas D Shaw, Joseph Dundon and Patrick AGlynn. Front row (l-r): Maurice Curran, Walter Beatty, Andrew F Smyth,

Moya Quinlan, Peter Prentice and Gerald Hickey

Out-going President, Andrew F Smyth, pictured at a dinner in his honour with then Senior Vice-President,

Frank Daly, and then Junior Vice-President, Ward McEllin

Law Society President Frank Daly pictured with His Honour Judge Pat McCartan, solicitor,who was recently sworn in as a judge of the

Circuit Court

When a client makes a will in favour of the Society, it wouldbe appreciated if the bequest were stated in the following words:

“I give, devise and bequeath the sum of pounds to the IrishCancer Society Limited to be applied by it for any of its charita-ble objects, as it, at its absolute discretion, may decide.”

All monies received by the Society are expended within theRepublic of Ireland.

“Conquer Cancer Campaign” is a Registered Business Nameand is used by the Society for some fund raising purposes. The“Cancer Research Advance-ment Board” allocates all ResearchGrants on behalf of theSociety.

Heart Attack and Stroke cause 46% of all deaths in Ireland

IHF, a registered charitable organisation, fights Heart Disease and Stroke through Education, Community

Services and Research.

Remember the IHF when you are making your will - you can contribute to our work

without losing capital or income during your lifetime.

IRISH HEART FOUNDATION

4 Clyde Road, Dublin 4Telephone: 01-6685001

WHO WILL FIGHT IRELAND'S

NUMBER ONE KILLER?

WE WILL

IF YOU WILL

WHERE THERE’S A WILLTHIS IS THE WAY…

5 Northumberland Road, Dublin 4. Tel: (01) 668


BANNER?BANNER?BOOKSBOOKS

In the 1960s, the EU (or theEEC as it was then) was con-

cerned that national intellectualproperty rights would be used torestrict trade within the EU.Steps were taken to ensure thatthis did not happen, with theresult that many conventionswere drafted and, latterly, severaldirectives in this area haveemanated from Europe. Thisfact, together with the almostdaily advances being made ininformation technology and itsincreasing influence on all ourlives, both professional and per-sonal, and the increased mobilityof individuals throughout thedeveloped world has resulted inan enormous explosion in thegrowth of intellectual propertylaw.

National law on matters suchas copyright, trade marks andpatents is becoming less impor-tant, and any practitioner con-fronted with an intellectual prop-erty issue must consider a broad-er range of European directivesand conventions which, in somecases, are above and beyondIrish law.

Against this background, MrTritton’s book on intellectualproperty in Europe is particularlyuseful as it contains a compre-hensive and well-indexed analy-sis of the relevant directives andconventions, as well as a detailedcommentary and considerationof the legislation’s effects andhow it has been interpreted andapplied at European level. It is anunusually well-rounded bookbecause, as well as describingand outlining the scope of vari-ous species of intellectual prop-erty rights (including design pro-tection and plant variety rights),it also deals with intellectualproperty issues in relation toenforcement, licensing, franchis-ing and abuse of dominant posi-

tion under Article 86 of the Treatyof Rome.

While the title suggests thatthis book is concerned with intel-lectual property in Europe, thebook does have a distinct Englishslant to it which is not surprisingas Mr Tritton is a practitioner inLondon. For example, some ofthe tables at the beginning of thebook deal with English statutes,statutory instruments and Rulesof the Supreme Court. There areno equivalent tables for otherEuropean countries.

There are useful tables at theend of each chapter from whichone can tell at a glance whichcountries have ratified the variousconventions and if any special

JUST PUBLISHEDIrish pension law and

practice Kevin Finucane and

Brian BuggyOak Tree Press (1996),

Merrion Building, LowerMerrion Street, Dublin 2

ISBN: 1 86076 036 8. Price: £65 (h/b); £49.95 (p/b)

Medical negligence actionsJohn White

Oak Tree Press (1996),Merrion Building, LowerMerrion Street, Dublin 2

ISBN: 1 86076 077 1. Price: £90

Unfair dismissal: cases andcommentary (second edition)Declan Madden and Tony Kerr

IBEC (1996), ConfederationHouse, 84/86 Lower Baggot

Street, Dublin 2ISBN: 0 90485 04 X.

Price: £45

Book reviewsIntellectual property in Europe

Guy TrittonSweet & Maxwell Ltd (1996), Cheriton House, North Way, Andover, Hants SP10 5BE, England

ISBN: 0 421 54230 6. Price: stg£95

These two volumes will be ofinterest to lawyers who prac-

tise in the area of personal injurylaw. They succeed in their objec-tive, which is to give a guidelineto readers as to the system of com-pensation in place in many juris-dictions throughout the world and,in particular, the European Union.

The publishers are to be com-mended for the way in which theyapproached this subject. An indi-vidual lawyer was chosen fromeach jurisdiction to prepare a gen-eral commentary on this area oflaw under specified headings.This enables the reader to get anoverall appreciation of the systemof personal injury law in place ineach of the jurisdictions coveredand also to compare that systemwith those in place in the variousother jurisdictions covered.

For instance, it is interesting to

International personal injury compensation sourcebook and yearbook (two vols)

Edited by Dennis CampbellSweet & Maxwell Ltd (1996), Cheriton House, North Way, Andover, Hants SP10 5BE, EnglandISBN: 0 421 54230 6 (sourcebook); 0 421 530 502 (yearbook). Price: stg£115 for both volumes

measures have been adopted by aparticular country in respect of aparticular aspect of intellectualproperty. The position is stated tobe as at 1 October 1995.

Specialist books of this kindunfortunately come at a premiumprice, which in this instance isstg£95. However, particularly inrelatively ‘new’ areas such as thatcovered in this book, practitionerswould find it useful to be armedwith a book which will not onlyhelp identify whether a client hasa problem, but may also be ofassistance in finding the answer tothat problem quickly.

Rachel Hussey is a solicitor withMcCann FitzGerald.

note that some jurisdictions allowfor tribunals and other forms ofresolution through mediation andarbitration, as opposed to a courtsystem, when dealing with per-sonal injury claims. Someexclude the right to claim damagefor what are classified as ‘minorinjuries’; some allow for ‘nofault’ compensation. The notionof strict liability varies from onejurisdiction to another. Someretain the services of juries todetermine the amount of compen-sation; others allow the right topursue claim for damages forbreach to what is known as ‘themoral code’. Some have specifiedscales determining the amount tobe awarded.

Legal aid varies from jurisdic-tion to jurisdiction. Contingencyfees/scale fees are prohibited inmany jurisdictions, but not all. In

one particular jurisdiction, a max-imum scale of damages providedfor an amount calculated by peri-ods of ‘confinement to bed’.Some allow for modification ofthe amount of compensationawarded, depending on the finan-cial status of both the responsibleand the injured party. The statuteof limitation provide for instal-ment payments in respect of cer-tain aspects of compensationrecovered. Punitive damages alsoappear to exist in certain jurisdic-tions (although this appears to bequite restrictive).

For all the above reasons, thissourcebook and yearbook are rec-ommended as useful guides forlawyers practising in the area ofpersonal injury law.

Michael Crowe is a partner inDaly Lynch & Crowe.

G

G

ENGLISH AGENTS: Agency work undertaken

for Irish Solicitors in both litigation and

non-contentious matters -including legal aid.

Fearon & Co.,Solicitors,

Westminster House, 12 The Broadway, Woking,

Surrey GU21 5AU.Tel: 0044 - 1483 - 726272Fax: 0044 - 1483 - 725807


PROFESSIONAL INFORMATIONPROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

Registration of Title Act, 1964An application has been received fromthe registered owner:s mentioned inthe schedule hereto for the issue of aland certificate as stated to have beenlost or inadvertently destroyed. A newcertificate will be issued unless notifi-cation is received in the Registry with-in 28 days from the date of publica-tion of this notice that the original cer-tificate is in existence and in the cus-tody of some person other than theregistered owner. Any such notifica-tion should state the grounds on whichthe certificate is being held.

(Registrar of Titles) Central Office, Land Registry, Chancery Street,Dublin(Published 7 February 1997)

Regd owner: Elizabeth Reilly;Folio:14661; Land: Culleen More;Area: 1a 0r 19p; Co Westmeath

Regd owner: James Danaher; Folio:7311; Land: Knocknabooly;Area:60a 3r 31p; Co Limerick

Regd owner: Gerald CarrickArmitage; Folio: 32476; Land:Cloughjordan; Area: 0a 2r 37p; CoTipperary

Regd owner: Allan Rogers; Folio:9358R; Land: Corporation; Area:4a 1r 19p; Co Donegal

Regd owner: Patrick Holden; Folio:1080; Land: Killahy; Area: 9a 0r39p; Co Kilkenny

Regd owner: Henry Smith; Folio:11283 and 11304 closed to 3832F;Land: Corlea; Area: Folio 11283 -9.556 acres; Folio 11304 - 11.681acres; Co Cavan

Regd owner: James Moroney,Kilmore, Co Clare; Folio: 9694;Townland: Kilmore; Area: 87a 3r0p; Co Clare

Regd owner: Vincent Smith; Folio:1135; Land: Rahard; Area: 106a 3r9p; Co Limerick

Regd owner: Patrick J Beirne,Corrigeenagappul, Mantua,Castlerea, Co Roscommon; Folio:23701; Townland:Carrigeenynaghtan, Tonaknick,Carrigeenynaghtan,Carrigeenynaghtan; Area: 1a 1r10p, 18a 2r 31p, 2a 1r 0p, 0a 3r21p; Co Roscommon

Regd owner: Patrick Beirne,Corrigeen, Mantua, Castlerea, CoRoscommon; Folio: 23701; Land:Carrigeenynaghtan,Carrigeenagappul; Area: 1a 1r 4p,19a 0r 14p; Co Roscommon

Regd owner: Patrick Kennedy, 685Aylesbury, Old Bawn, Tallaght, CoDublin; Folio: 15993F; Lands: 1)townland of Oldbawn in thebarony of Uppercross, 2) propertysituate to the west of Old BawnRoad in the town of Tallaght,townland of Oldbawn and baronyof Uppercross; Co Dublin

Regd owner: James Michael andNorah Sullivan,Knocknacunny,Ballaghaderreen,Co Roscommon; Folio: 24357;Townland: Knockanaconny,Aghalustia; Area: 8a 1r 8p, 1a 2r0p; Co Roscommon

Regd owner: Thomas and GeraldineTighe; Folio: 18736F; Lands:Laraganboy West; Area: .335hectares; Co Galway

Regd owner: Mary Cullinane; Folio:24255 closed to 20322F; Land:Ballyorgan; Co Limerick

Regd owner: Sonia Buckley,Glendale, Kilternan, Co Dublin,Folio: 8613; Lands: townland ofGlenamuck South in the barony ofRathdown; Co. Dublin

Regd owner: Brigid Murphy; Folio:634 and 9936; Land: Rossroe; Area:Folio 634 - 147a 0p 5r; Folio 9936 -75a 0p 5r; Co Kilkenny

Regd owner: Matthew Dwyer; Folio:3356; Land: Quarryland; Area: 28a0r 30p; Co Meath

Regd owner: Timothy Hogan; Folio:3669F; Land: Portnard; Area: Prop1 - 22a 3r 6p; Prop 2 - 2, 51a 0r 24p(1 tenth part); Prop 3 - 8a 1r 0p;Prop 4 - 122a 2r 15p (1 eleventhpart); Co Limerick Regd owner:Cornelus Doherty; Folio: 2870;Land: Tullintowell; Area: 27a 2r25p; Co Leitrim

Regd owner: Michael Malone,Ballyvrislaun, Liscannor, Co Clare;Folio: 29674; Townland: Bally-vris-laun; Ballyvrislaun;Area: 18.743acres; 13.240 acres; Co Limerick

Regd owner: John Patrick Cox; Folio:12306; Townland: Graffoge,Cloonshannagh, Graffoge; Area:29a 0r 7p, 1a 2r 6p; 1a 3r 25p; CoRoscommon

Regd owner: Patrick Hanlon, Folio:18425; Lands: Cloncumber,Pluckerstown, Punchersgrange andFeighcullen in the Baronies ofConnell and Offaly East; Area: 0a2r 37p; Co Kildare

Regd owner: Patrick McGovern andAnn McGovern, The Boreen,Crossmolina, Co Mayo; Folio:280F; Co Mayo

Regd owner: Patrick and BernadetteWhelan; Folio: 14337, 2336, 2337;Land: Ballyroan; Area: Folio 14337- 4a 2r 2p; Folio 2337 - 9a 1r 1p;Folio 2336 - 9a 3r 15p; Co Queens

Regd owner: Michael Keeling,Donabate, County Dublin; Folio:5351; Lands: Townland ofBeaverstown in the barony ofNethercross; Co Dublin

Regd owner: John Joseph McGinley;Folio: 943F; Land: Abbeylands;Area: 0a 1r 6p; Co Donegal

Regd owner: John Oliver O’Gorman;Folio: 58L; Land: Tyone and baronyof Ormond Upper; Co Tipperary

Regd owner: Thomas Joseph Donlon;Folio: 2218; Land: Ards; Area: 31a3r 14p; Co Longford

Regd owner: Michael and OlwynJordan, 40 Martello Court,Portmarnock, Co Dublin; Folio:23158F; Lands: Townland of SaintHelens in the barony of Coolock;Co Dublin

Regd owner: George and ConcessaPrendergast; Folio: 13203F; Land:Knockbarragh; Area: 1.979Hectares; Co Carlow

Regd owner: Angus Fine ChemicalsLimited (now HicksonPharmachem Limited); Folio:12497L; Lands: Ringaskiddy in theBarony of Kerrycurrihy; Co Cork

Regd owner: Patrick Twomey; Folio:32188 and 43836; Lands: Kilnapand barony of Cork; Co Cork

Regd owner: John McLean; Folio:4414; Lands: Drumcliffe North inthe barony of Carbury; Area: 11a12p; Co Sligo

Regd owner: William Dixon; Folio:862; Land: Ballynabarney; Area:12a 1r 21p; Co Wexford

Regd owner: Kathleen Connolly;Folio: 2646F; Land:Druminshingore; Area: 165.568acres; Co Leitrim

Regd owner: Michael Purcell; Folio:6062 and 6065; Lands:Ballinvalley and Killeigh; CoKings

Regd owner: James Gerard Fallon;Folio: 381; Land: Kilmore Lowerand Kilmore Upper; Co Longford

Regd owner: Patrick JosephMcEnroe (deceased); Folio:13210;Land: Eighter; Area: 183a0r 23p; Co Cavan

Regd owner: Crampton HousingLimited, 158 Shelbourne Road,Dublin; Folio: 8836F; Lands:Townland of Ballymount Great inthe barony of Uppercross; CoDublin

Regd owner: Michael T O’Sullivan;Folio: 716 and 935;Land:Kilfallinga; Area: Folio 716 -2a 2r 20p; Folio 935 - 10a 1r 0p;Co Kerry

Regd owner: Anthony Garvey andMaureen Garvey, 5 Hillcrest Way,Hillcrest, Lucan, Co Dublin; Folio:10827F; Lands: A plot of groundsituate to the South East of Tandy’sLane in the town and parish ofLucan and barony of Newcastle;Area: 0a 2r 37p; Co Dublin

Regd owner: Philomena Walsh;Folio: 389F; Lands: CroballyUpper, barony of Middlethird; CoWaterford

LOST LAND CERTIFICATES

7 Day LicenceUrgently Required

Details toRaymond St. J. O’Neill

& Co.,Solicitors & Notary

PublicCourthouse Chambers,

27/29 Washington Street,Cork (Ref. RON)

Tel. No. 021/273050Fax. No. 021/276786

James Hyland & Company

FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS

26/28 South Terrace,Cork,

Ireland.

Phone (021) 319 200Fax: (021) 319 300

E-mail jhyland @ indigo.ie

NOTE FOR ADVERTISERSAdvertising rates in the Professional information section are as follows:Lost land certificates: £18 plus 21% VAT. Wills: £21 plus 21% VAT. Lost titledeeds: £50 plus 21% VAT. Employment/miscellaneous: £3 per printed line(approx 4-5 words to a line) plus 21% VAT

All advertisements must be paid for prior to publication.


PROFESSIONAL INFORMATIONPROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

WILLS

O’Leary, Mary of Curraheen,Carrigrohane, Co Cork and formerly ofWhiddy Island, Bantry, Co Cork. Wouldany person having any knowledge of awill executed by the above nameddeceased who died on 30 December1996, please contact Messrs O’MahonyFarrelly, Solicitors, Wolfe Tone Square,Bantry, Co Cork, tel: 027 50132: fax:027 50603.

Ganly, Katherine Mary, deceased, lateof 61 Bayside Boulevard North, Sutton,Dublin. Would any person having knowl-edge of a will made after 17 December1975 by the above named deceased whodied on 16 December 1996, please con-tact Beauchamps, Solicitors of DollardHouse, Wellington Quay, Dublin 2 (refJMB), tel: 6715522; fax: 6773783.

Quirke, William Joseph, deceased, lateof 19 Lotabeg Terrace, Mayfield, Cork.Would any person having any knowledgeof a will executed by the above nameddeceased who died on 30 December1996, please contact P J O’Driscoll &Sons, Solicitors, 73 South Mall, Cork,tel: 021 271421; fax: 021 274709 (ref:KQ/DF/C156).

Stynes, Peter, deceased, late of 11Colbert’s Fort, Tallaght, Dublin 24.Would any person having knowledge ofthe drafting or execution of an originalwill by the above named deceased whodied on 21 November 1996, please con-tact Harry Sexton of Sexton Keenan &Company, Solicitors, 138 WalkinstownAvenue, Dublin 12, tel: 4500833; fax:4500226.

McGowan, Michael, deceased, late ofRenmore Barracks, Renmore, Galway.Would any person having knowledge ofa will executed by the above nameddeceased who died on 4 November 1996,please contact M J Horgan & Sons,Solicitors, 50 South Mall, Cork, tel: 021273074; fax: 021 270846.

Hall, Michael, deceased, late of 18Mount Dillon Court, Artane, Dublin 5, 1St. Alphonsus Road, Drumcondra,Dublin 9 and Ballinasloe, Co Galway.Would any person having knowledge ofthe will of the above named deceasedwho died on 15 December 1996, pleasecontact Quinn O’Donnell, Solicitors, 23aVillage Green, Tallaght, Dublin 24, tel:01 4521744; fax: 4521819.

Mahoney, Kathleen, deceased, late of 5East Pier, Howth, Co Dublin and former-ly of 28 Harbour Road, Howth. Wouldany person having any knowledge of awill executed by the above nameddeceased who died on 1 January 1997,please contact Maxwell Weldon &Darley, Solicitors, 19 Lower BaggotStreet, Dublin 2, tel: 6765473; fax:6607116.

Baker, Leslie, deceased, late of 42 ParkRoad, Muskerry Estate, Ballincollig, CoCork. Would anyone having knowledgeof the whereabouts of the will of theabove named deceased who died on 11December 1996, please contact: Eoin C.Daly & Company, Solicitors, 38 SouthMall, Cork, tel: 021 275244.

Lane, Patrick (otherwise Pat), late ofCloonbanane, Shrule, Co Galway.Would anybody having knowledge ofthe whereabouts of a will of the abovenamed deceased who died on 27November 1996, please contact M GRyan & Company, Solicitors, 34/36Upper Abbeygate Street, Galway, tel:091 564011; fax: 091 561527.

Ryan, Edward, deceased, late ofGlenstal, Magazine Road, Cork. Wouldany person having any knowledge of awill executed by the above nameddeceased who died on 3 March 1983,please contact Michael Powell &Company, Solicitors, 48 Grand Parade,Cork, tel: 021 270451; fax: 021 270454.

Quinn, William, deceased late ofKinure, Belgooly, Co Cork. Would anyperson having knowledge of the where-abouts of the will of the above nameddeceased who died on 18 January 1996,please contact Charles Hennessy of J WO’Donovan & Company, Solicitors, 53South Mall, Cork, tel: 021 275352; fax:021 273704.

Condon, Michael, deceased, late ofKilminick, Callan, Co Kilkenny. Wouldany person having any knowledge of awill executed by the above nameddeceased who died on 21 April 1996,please contact John Lanigan & Nolan,Solicitors, Abbey Bridge, Dean Street,Kilkenny, as soon as possible, tel: 05621040; fax: 056 65980.

Warren, Patrick, deceased late of 20Raymond Street, South Circular Road,Dublin 8. Would any person having anyknowledge of the title deeds in thename of the above deceased (who diedon the 1st July 1995) in respect of theabove property, please contact Malone& Potter, Solicitors, 7 Cope Street,Dublin 2. Tel: 6712644.

MISCELLANEOUS

Northern Ireland Agents for all con-tentious and non-contentious matters.Consultation in Dublin if required. Feesharing envisaged. Offices in Belfast,Newry and Carrickfergus. ContactNorville Connolly, D & E Fisher,Solicitors, 8 Trevor Hill, Newry, Tel:0801693 61616; Fax: 0801693 67712.

Personal Injury Claims in Englandand Wales. Specialist P I solicitors withoffices in London and Birmingham canassist in all types of injury claims. One

of our staff is in Ireland for one week inevery month. Legal aid available toclients that qualify. Contact DavidLevene & Company, Ashley House,235-239 High Road, Wood Green,London N22 4HF, England. Tel: 004481 881 7777; Fax: 0044 81 889 6395and Bank House, Cherry Street,Birmingham, B2 5AL Tel: 0044 21 6333200; Fax: 0044 21 633 4344.

London West End Solicitorswill advise and undertake UK-related matters. All areas - corporate/private client. ResidentIrish solicitor. Reciprocalarrangement and feesharingenvisaged. Agency work also.Contact: Ellis & Fairbairn, 26Old Brompton Road, SouthKensington, London SW7 3DL.Tel: 0044 71 589 0141; Fax: 0044 71 225 3935

Agents - England and Wales. We arewilling to act as agents for Irish solici-tors in civil and criminal litigation.Contact: Olliers, Solicitors, AldermanDownward House, 2/3 The Birtles,Civic Centre, Wythenshawe,Manchester M22 5RF (Tel: 0044 161437 0527; Fax: 0044 161 437 3225).

Northern Ireland Solicitors.Established for over 20 years. Willadvise and undertake all contentiousand non-contentious Northern Irishlegal matters on an agency or otherwisebasis. Contact: Karen O’Leary, T.E.W.Huey & Company, 11 LimavaddyRoad, Londonderry BT47 1JU. Tel: 0801504 42184; Fax: 080 1504 311231; E-mail: [email protected].

Licence Wanted - Ordinary 7 day pub-lican licence anywhere in Ireland. Pleasecontact Brendan Walsh, Brendan Walsh& Partners, Solicitors, 18 Herbert Street,Dublin 2. Tel: 6762207; Fax: 6612175;E-mail: [email protected]

Northern Ireland Solicitors providingan efficient and comprehensive LegalService in all contentious/non-con-tentious matters. Dublin-based consulta-tions and elsewhere. Fee apportionment.M. L. White Solicitors, 43-45Monaghan Street, Newry, CountyDown. Tel: 08 01693 68144; Fax: 0801693 60966

Licence wanted - ordinary seven daypublicans licence anywhere in Ireland.Please contact Mr. Gerard F. O’Donnell,Solicitor of O’Donnell Kilfeather,Solicitors, “The Halls”, Quay Street,Galway. Tel: 091 562037/8; Fax: 091562038

For Sale 7 day ordinary spirit licence.Reply to Box No 1.

OPPORTUNITYYOUNG, EXPERIENCED

SOLICITORLong est. Dublin based FinancialInstitution, specialising in residentialMortgage Lending, wishes to recruita young, enthusiastic, Solicitor withbetween 3 to 5 years post qualifica-tion experience. Proven experience inall aspects of residential propertyConveyancing is essential. Family &Matrimonial Law experience/knowl-edge is desirable.

We would welcome applications fromqualified Solicitors meeting the aboverequirements, including those whomay have recently established, or whomay be considering the establishmentof their own Legal Practice.

This is an interesting developmentopportunity with potential forabove average earnings.

Please reply with detailed coveringletter and CV to; Craig Matthews,Law Recruitment, 4 UpperFitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2.

This Financial Institution is an EQUAL opportunities employer

Solicitors Practice Required Cork Cityarea. Flexible and confidential arrange-ments. Might suit retiring practitioner.Reply to Box No 2

Licence Wanted - Ordinary 7 day publi-cans licence anywhere in Ireland. Pleasecontact W.R. Joyce & Company, Solici-tors, 18 Main Street, Arklow, Co. Wick-low. Tel: 0402 32062; Fax: 0402 31702

Westport - Bord Failte Highest GrateSelf/Catering Home overlooking West-port Quay and Clew Bay. Adjacent to allamenities, 4 bedrooms, conservatory,ensuite master bedroom. Tel: 098 27333

Northern Ireland Solicitors. Willadvise and undertake N.I. related mat-ters. All areas Corporate/Private. Agencyor full referral of cases as preferred.Consultations in Dublin or elsewhere ifrequired. Fee Sharing envisaged.Donnelly Neary & Donnelly, 1Downshire Road, Newry, Co Down,Telephone: 0801-693-64611; Fax: 0801-693-67000. Contact K J Neary.

Dublin 2, offices available to let.Convenient location. reasonable terms.One or two floors above existing prac-tice. Contact: Murphy Troy & Co. Tel: 01 6715459.

LOST TITLE DEEDS

Walsh, Eileen property at 108 DonoreTerrace, South Circular Road, Dublin 8.Would anyone knowing the whereaboutsof the above title deed please contactTom Collins & Company, Solicitors 6Charlemont Street, Dublin 2. Tel: 01 478 2510. G


SITUATIONS VACANTSITUATIONS VACANT

We are a major offshore law firm comprising Isle of Manadvocates and English solicitors and barristers and inviteapplications for the following position:

ASSOCIATE SOLICITIORCOMMERCIAL LITIGATION

The firm provides offshore and international legal advice in areassuch as financial services, corporate disputes, trusts and assettracing. Our clients include many of the world’s largest financialand commercial organisations. An exceptional individual isrequired to assist in servicing the requirements of the expandingclient base of the commercial litigation department.

Applicants should have an impressive academic background,between 2 and 5 years’ first-class experience of regulatory andgeneral commerical litigation and the drive and ambition to suc-ceed in a challenging and rewarding offshore environment. Agenerous remuneration package is offered.

Interested candidates should apply in writing with curriculumvitae to The Staff Partner, Cains Advocates, 15-19 Athol Street,Douglas, Isle of man IM1 ILB (Fax +44 1624 638333)

University College, CorkColáiste na hOllscoile. Corcaigh

COLLEGE LECTURESHIPS IN LAWApplications are invited for these two full-time permanent appointments. Applicantswill normally be expected to have a higherdegree in Law and/or professional legal qualifications. Applicants should have teaching and research interests in any of the major fields of Law.

Salary scale: IR£18,010 – IR£24,767 p.a.(with provision for progression beyond a barto a maximum salary of IR37,305 p.a.)

For informal discussion contact Professor David Morgan Tel. (+353-21) 902532.Fax. (+353-21) 270690.

Application forms and further details of thepost may be obtained from the AcademicAppointments Office, University College,Cork, Ireland. Tel (021) 902364; Fax. (021) 271568; Email: [email protected]

CLOSING DATE: FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY, 1997

EUROPÄISCHE RECHTSAKADEMIE TRIERACADEMY OF EUROPEAN LAW TRIER

ACADEMIE DE DROIT EUROPEEN DE TREVES

VACANCYEuropean Affairs Lawyer

University College, Cork, is an Equal Opportunities Employer

AINSC Advocates, Solicitors & Notaries

■ The Academy of European Law Trier is a non-profitmaking foundationsupported by the European Union. The main purpose of the Academy isto organise a wide variety of events for the practising lawyer and toprovide a forum for the international exchange of experience on bothgeneral and specific issues of EC law.

■ The Academy is seeking to recruit a European affairs lawyer to assistin the planning and organisation of post-graduate courses andseminars. He/she should have a sound knowledge of EuropeanCommunity law, be of English mother tongue, with good spokenGerman and knowledge of French. The successful candidate will beinvolved particularly in justice and home affairs, consumer protectionand litigation in the EU courts in Luxembourg. The appointment is

available immediately, initially part-time, and may possibly be convertedinto a full-time post later.

■ Trier is Germany’s oldest city and is situated in the heartland of Europe,close to the location of the European Courts in Luxembourg. Trier has athriving university, which offers a post-graduate course in German lawfor non-Germans, leading to a the degree LL.M. An LL.M. degree courseon European integration is offered by the European Institute of theUniversity of the Saarland, which is not far from Trier.

■ This appointment offers an interesting opportunity for a young lawyerto extend his/her knowledge of European law and to intensify contactswith European institutions.

Europäische Rechtsakademie Trier, Dasbacher. 10, D-54292 TrierTelephone: ++49-651-147100, Fax: ++49-651-1471020

Please send your curriculum vitae (in German), together with the names of two referees to:

Documents

GAZETTE 12 Cover story...ILT digest 39 Tax commentary 47 Diary dates 50 People and places 51 Book reviews 53 Professional information 54 Editor: Conal O’Boyle MA Deputy Editor: Mary