The Gazette 1964/67

think that they should go further and the Vendor consulting his solicitor first and that the Agree ment in question should be submitted to the Vendor's solicitor. As you know the price paid by the Department of Lands for mountain land which is required for re afforestation is ridiculously low in any case, and it is certainly putting a great burden on the Vendor to make him be responsible for showing title. We pointed out to the Chief State Solicitor, who is acting for the Minister for Lands, that when a Local Authority acquires land for the purpose of the Labourer's Acts or for road widening, etc., they agree to pay the Vendor's costs of making title. We think that a similar situation should exist with the Department of Lands. We would be glad if you would bring this matter before the Law Society and have their views thereon. We have told the Chief State Solicitor and that we intended asking the Law Society to take up the matter with the Department of Lands. A copy of the above letter was forwarded to the Secretary of the Irish Land Commission en quiring as to whether our member's objection was well-founded. In reply the Society received the following letter from the Department of Lands (Forestry Division) :— As to your point that in compulsory acquisitions the invariable practice is that the acquiring Authority pays the owners' costs, this is, of course, accepted. Compulsory proceedings under the Forestry Acts are no exception to this rule and, in all cases in which such proceedings are resorted to, the practice is for the Minister to bear the costs incurred by the vendor in deducing, evidencing and verifying title. The Minister is required to do so by Section 18, Forestry Act, 1946. Ordinary voluntary sales are, however, in a different category and in such sales it is the practice of the Department to require vendors to bear their own costs. We see no grounds in existing circumstances for changing this practice. The particular case referred to by your member appears to relate to the pending purchase by the Forestry Division for £40 of 4aacres in the townland of AB. in the County of CD. (comprising 217 acres, 3 roods, 27 perches). This small division was voluntarily offered for sale to the Forestry Division by EF. The negotiations with EF (including all relevant conditions) were carried out freely by correspondence—one of the conditions being that the vendor would be liable for his own costs in the sale. During such correspondence it was open to the vendor, if he so wished, to seek what ever advice he needed from his solicitor or anybody else. It was not until agreement had been reached that the vendor furnished the name and address of the solicitor, who would act for him in showing title. There was no formal contract. There can be no suggestion that this particular vendor or any other vendor of lands to the Forestry Division has been denied his right or refused an opportunity to consult a solicitor at any stage of negotiations. The Department cannot, however, accept the proposition that they should insist on vendors consulting solicitors. That is a matter, as you will no doubt appreciate, which is entirely for each vendor himself. As regards your correspondent's reference to the Department's insistence, in the case quoted, on having evidence furnished to enable the note as to equities to be dischareged, I must say that the probr»™ of dis­ insist on

proportionate costs involving small purchase monies is one that cuases considerable concern in the Forestry Division and in an effort to lessen the burden of costs the practice is to dispense with the requirement to discharge equities in sales where the purchase money does not exceed £500 and the lands have been registered for 20 years or more. Unfortunately this concession could not be applied in the case of your member's client as his lands were only registered in 1957. On 3rd March, 1966 the Society wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Lands as follows : :— Thank you for your letter of February 21st. I think my Council will object to the practice of obtaining the signature of a vendor without legal advice. The effect of the practice in this case is that the vendor may incur legal costs exceeding the amount of the compensation paid by the Department. If he had known this it is unlikely that he would have signed the contract and if he had an opportunity of consulting a solicitor before signing he would have been so advised. In these circumstances the Council think that the practice of the Department of dealing with vendors, many of them being persons of little education or business acumen, and getting them to sign contracts without professional advice is open to objection. A further letter was sent to the Secretary of the Irish Land Commission on 4th March, 1966 by the Society which stated inter alia :— I have been directed by the Council to request that where contracts are placed before respective vendors by the Department of Lands (Forestry Division) the acquisi tion of land for afforestation, that the contract contain a provision that the Department will be responsible for the vendor's costs. the heading "Land Act 1965" at page 89 of the March 1966 issue of the GAZF.TTF, and it would seem to us either that Members have not sufficiently informed your reporter of the circumstances of their case or that they were incorrectly advised. From our reading of the Land Act 1965 it would appear that Land Commission Consent is only required to enable an "interest" in land to which the section applies to become vested in a person who is not a "qualified person" within the meaning of the Act. It does not seem to be material whether the person from whom "interest" passes is a "qualified person". In the circumstances reported in the GAZKTTF. the "interest" was passing from mortgagees domiciled and resident in England and the report does not mention either the domicile or residence of members client to whom the interest was passing. Presumably their client was a "qualified person". It would appear therefore, that in the circumstances as set out in your report Land Commission consent need not be obtained. Yours faithfully, Messrs. McMahon & Tweedy. in cases LAND ACT 1965 Dear Sir, We have read with interest the article under