The Gazette 1952-1955

District Court Rules Committee. M r . D ermot P. S haw was re-appointed as one o f the Society’s representatives on the Committee. Lease. Incidence o f costs. Title. T he purchaser o f a building site entered into an agreement to acquire a building site by way o f lease for a term o f 99 years in consideration o f a fine of £200 and the yearly rent o f £ 12 . The agreement was silent as to costs. The lessor maintained that the lessee was liable to pay the costs o f the lease, and the lessees maintained that the transaction was substantially a sale and that the purchaser was not liable for the lessor’s costs. The following questions were submitted for the opinion o f the Council and the parties agreeing to accept the Society’s ruling :— (1) Whether the lessee as purchaser o f two building sites for the sum o f £zoo, the sale to be carried out by way o f lease for 99 years at the yearly rent o f £12, was liable to pay the lessor’s costs ? (2) Whether the lessor was legally bound to furnish to the lessee as purchaser o f the site evidence o f his title to grant the lease for a period o f 40 years prior to the date thereof, and to furnish copies o f the relevant title documents free o f expense to the lessee ? The Council on a report from a committee held— (1) That the transaction was substantially a sale within the meaning o f Sims Clarke v. Ilet Ltd., and that each party should pay his own costs. (2) The Council declined to express an o p in ion on the question o f law, but thought that the vendor ought to furnish the usual title free o f expense to the purchaser. Entries in Directories. T h e Council decided to revise the statement as to the propriety o f certain entries in directories by solicitors. The revised statement is printed in the present issue o f T he G azette . Irish Land Commission. Interviews by officials with clients in the Solicitor’s Absence. I t was decided that the Secretary should approach the Land Commission on the subject o f c o m p la in t received from members alleging that an Inspector o f the Forestry Department had obtained a client’s signature to a contract with the Department o f Lands for the purchase o f a plot o f land in the absence o f his solicitor.

Professional Secrecy. Client’s Privilege. A member asked for the guidance o f the Council in a matter in which he had been summoned to give evidence on behalf o f the State concerning a sum of £30 alleged to have been paid to another solicitor to stamp a deed. The client did not wish that member should testify, and member wished to know whethef he was precluded from giving evidence by the client’ s privilege. The Council on a report from a Com­ mittee expressed the following opinion— Written or oral communications, whether in the form o f title deeds, letters, bills o f costs, entries or statements which pass directly or indirectly between the client and his solicitor in his professional capacity and in the legitimate course o f professional employment, are privi­ leged in the client’s favour and the solicitor may not, without the client’s permission, disclose them to any third party. The privilege, however, belongs to the client, and not to the solicitor, and if directed by the client the solicitor must make disclosure. The solicitor’ s privilege is no greater than the client’s and if the client cannot refuse discovery, the solicitor cannot claim privilege. I f the client in the present case were asked to produce the deed and to say whether or not it was stamped and the name o f the solicitor who stamped it the Council thought that he would have to answer. These facts appear to be facts patent to the senses which would not fall within the definition of professional communications. I f the client is bound to give the information, the solicitor would also be bound to give it. In the opinion o f the Council, the proper course for member would be to decline to answer any questions relating to the work which he performed on the client’s behalf on the ground of privilege. The question would then be argued between counsel for the State and counsel for the defence, and the Judge would decide whether the objection is good. I f the Judge held against the privilege member would be bound to answer. 4TH N ovember : The President in the Chair. Also present : Messrs. John J. Nash and John R. Halpin, Vice-Presidents ; John Carrigan, Henry St. J . Blake, Arthur Cox, John J. Shed, James R. Quirke, Cornelius J. Daly, Reginald J. Nolan, William J. Norman, Edmund Hayes, John Maher, Peter E. O’Connell, Thomas A. O’Reilly, Sean O hUadhaigh, James J. O’Connor, Ralph J. Walker, Patrick F. O’Reilly, Patrick R. Boyd, George A . Nolan, Desmond J. Collins, George G. Overend. 38