The Gazette 1958-61

Vol. No.

JULY, 1959

THE GAZETTE of the INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND President JOHN R. HALPIN, Secretary ERIC A. PLUNKETT

Vice-Presidents JOHN J. NASH CORNELIUS J. DALY

FOR CIRCULATION AMONG MEMBERS

MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL JULY znd.—The President in the Chair. Also present, Messrs. Comerford, O'Connor, McCarron, O'Connell, Noonan, Quirke, Lanigan, Gilmore, Walker, Martin, Green, Overend, Collins, \Vhite, O'Donnell, GafTney, Carrigan, Kelly, Taylor, O'Reilly, Shaw, Nolan, George A. Nolan, Shell, Mayne. The following was among the business transacted. Pleadings during long vacation It was decided that the Society's representatives on the Superior Courts Rules Committee should be asked to bring before that committee a proposal by the Society that the rule of court which provides that pleadings may not be delivered during the long vacation should be revoked. Accountant General, High Court It was decided to make representations to the appropriate quarters that the "practice in the office of the Accountant General, High Court, whereby payments will not be made during the long vacation should be changed.

Insurance Company. Defence to negligence action inconsistent with position appearing in negotiations A member was instructed by Miss A and Mrs. B, driver and passenger in a motor car to institute proceedings for personal injuries in respect of a collision with a car driven by C. C at the time of the accident held the other car involved in the collision on hire from his employers X, Ltd., but the exact relationship between C and X, Ltd., was unknown at that time to member. Member wrote to C stating that A and B would hold C responsible for the damage suffered and subsequently received correspondence from an insurance company headed "Motor Claim No. 3174, X, Ltd., your clients Miss A and Mrs. B." The negotiations for a settle ment were unsuccessful and proceedings were instituted by member on behalf of his clients against X, Ltd. Defences were filed denying that the motor car driven by C was the property of the defendants as alleged or at all. The plaintiff's solicitor then ascertained that the relationship of C with X, Ltd. was that of a hirer of the motor vehicle and accord ingly by virtue of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, X, Ltd. were not the owners thereof. The