The Gazette 1964/67

Gaffney for which he deserves the best thanks of the pro fession. Court Procedure A working party consisting of Messrs T. A. O'Reilly, Rory O'Connor, E. O. Knapp, Niall McLaughlin and James Fagan was appointed to consider the possibility of the adoption of a pre- trial procedure in the High Court and Circuit Court with allied questions including agreed medi cal reports. Conflict of Interests Members were consulted by an insurance com pany who forwarded their file with a High Court summons served on the insured arising out of an accident. The company instructed members to interview the insured and fully investigate the circumstances of the accident. At that stage the company had not decided whether or not to cover the insured under his policy in respect of the accident. Members subsequently interviewed the insured and in reply to questions they stated that they had been consulted by the insurance com pany with instructions to make the investigation and that in the event of cover being confirmed under the policy they would be acting for the defendant in the proceedings. They then took full particulars of the accident which disclosed certain matters which would be material to the company if any question of disclaiming cover under the policy arose. The insured subsequently wrote to members claiming that the statement which he had given to them was of a confidential nature and objected to its being submitted to the company on the ground that the company might use his statement to deprive him of cover under the policy. On a request from members for guid ance the Council stated that it appeared from the facts stated that they were acting for the insurance company only. If they had made it absolutely clear to the insured that they acted on behalf of the company and were making investi gations on behalf of the company as to whethe • or not the insured was covered by the policy they would be entitled to supply the information to the company. If they had any doubt that the insured appreciated his position the Council took the view that it would be improper for the mem bers to disclose the contents of the statement to the company. Lease, Varying Rent By lease dated 4th September 1965 under the long resident' equity under the Landlord and Tenant Acts a dwelling house demised to the lessee 105 rendered distinguished service

for 21 years subject to the yearly rent of £20 and if and when the lessee should cease to reside therein subject to the yearly sum of £224. The lease contained a covenant by the lessee not to assign or sub-let without the lessor's consent at a rent less than £240 per annum. The lessor sub mitted a bill of costs drawn under the rack rent scale on the annual rent of £240. The lessee sub mitted that the costs should be charged under the long lease scale on the yearly rent of £20. The Council on the report from a committee on the submission to arbitration stated that the cost should be charged on the rack rent scale on the rent of £240. SUCCESSION ACT, 1965 The Succession Act, 1965 (Form of Adminis tration Bond) (No. 2) Rules, 1967 (S.I. No. 18 of 1967), prescribe the form of administration bond to be used, as from the 1st day of April 1967, under section 34 of the Succession Act, 1965. The Instrument is available from the Government Pub lications Sale Office, G.P.O. Arcade, Dublin 1, price 9d. DEATH DUTIES AND THE CHAIN OF EXECUTORSHIP SUCCESSION ACT 1965 Members of the Society acted for an English bank which was executor of the will of a deceased, who died domiciled in England in 1964 and whose only asset in the Republic of Ireland was a holding of 34 per cent War Stock on the Bank of Ireland register. The deceased had been execu trix during her lifetime of the will of a previous testator. The Estate Duty Office in the Republic forwarded a claim to the executors of the last deceased for an account for death duties arising on the death of the original testator, maintaining that the ultimate testator was personal represen tative by virtue of the chain of executorship of the original testator and was therefore primarily responsible accountable for all claims for duties arising on the first death. At the time of taking out the grant the bank had no knowledge what ever of the fact that their testator was executor of any other will or that any claims for duties were outstanding. No assets came to their hands from the first estate and in the circumstances they refused to admit or deal with the revenue claims. As they were a bank domiciled outside the Republic of Ireland they were in a position to ignore the claims. The position would have been different in the case of an executor domiciled within the Republic.