The Gazette 1973

Conditions of standing are also imposed and many will not be able to satisfy some or all of the new requirements. To cap the new requirements, the activi- ties of conseils juridiques are now restricted to advising and the drafting of documents. Whether their lucrative interventions with government agencies will also come to an end and whether the restrictions will be strictly observed, is to be hoped for but remains to be seen. Many will give up; it is expected that not more than 1,500 to 2,500 will be admitted to the Roll. The aims of the reform What were the objects of the reform? The fusion of the various branches of the profession is first and fore- most a rationalisation. The unification of the two main branches of practitioners should benefit those who resort to law in two respects: by simplification, obviat- ing the necessity for clients to deal with two types of lawyers, members of two separate professions. This it is An application of great interest was recently brought before the Dublin Circuit Court. It was stated by Counsel to be the first of its kind to be brought in the Circuit Court, certainly in the Dublin Circuit area. The application was brought under Section 57 (6) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, for an extension of time to bring a claim for compensation under Part VI of the same Act. Frascati Estates Limited of 28 Lower Leeson Street) Dublin, made a claim for compensation under Section 55 of the Act against the Corporation of Dun Laoghaire arising out of the refusal of an application for planning per- mission by the Corporation as Planning Authority, in relation to the lands and premises known as Frascati, Rock Road, Blackrock, comprising in all 6.16 acres. The Corporation refused planning permission on the 19th May 1972. The Developers appealed against that decision and an oral hearing of the Appeal was held in October 1972. Before the Minister gave his decision Frascati Estates Limited withdrew their Appeal to the Minister for Local Government and on the 12th December 1972 lodged a claim with the Corporation for compensation amounting to £1,309,972.00. The Corporation rejected their claim on the basis that it had not been brought within the six months statutory period as set out in sub- section (6) (a) of Section 55 of the Act which provides that a claim for compensation shall be made within six months after the notification of a planning decision by the Planning Authority or the Minister, as the case may be. The Corporation contended that the six months time period ran from the 19th May and, therefore, Frascati Estates Ltd. were late in bringing their claim. By Notice of Motion dated the 24th January 1973 Frascati Estates Limited applied to the Circuit Court for an extension of time and the application was brought in accordance with the Circuit Rules (No. 1) 1970 (S.I. No. 149 of 1970) made by the Minister for Justice on the 24th June 1970. The procedure under these rules differs somewhat from the procedure dealing with Applications, Notices of Motion, etc., in the Circuit Court. Order 60, Rule (5) provides that an Application to

hoped that procedure will be speeded up and lead to a saving in the costs. It should also remove the disad- vantages of diffused responsibility arising from the sharing of roles in litigation between avoué and avocat. The reform is also an approach towards the systems in certain other Continental states, such as Germany, Holland and Italy, where the profession, for all prac- tical purposes, is fused. The French reform may be of interest to the English legal professions, in helping to crystallise ideas, tending towards the same end and demonstrating at least one possible solution. Some figures in this field might be of interest: the number of avocats, before the reform, was about 7,500 in the whole of France; one half of them were members of the Paris Bar. At the same time, 1,500 avoues practised in the country, out of them 150 in Paris. The number of notaries in the whole of France is just over 6,000. the Circuit Court for extension of time (which shall be called an Action) shall be commenced by the issue of a Notice of Motion in form No. 2 to the Schedule to the Order and the Applicants shall be called Plaintiffs. The same rule provides that the Planning Authority shall be called the Respondent. The rules differ from other rules in so far as that instead of the Notice of Motion being grounded by an Affidavit, Form 2 sets out the grounds for bringing the application. Rule 13 of Order 60 provides that if a Respondent wishes to dispute wholly or partly the Plaintiff's claim he must serve a Defence in accordance with Form 3 on the Plaintiff within ten days after the service of the Notice of Motion. This document replaces the more usual replying Affidavit. Another departure from the ordinary rules is con- tained in rule 14 which provides for the hearing of oral evidence and it is unusual for oral evidence to be given in the hearing of a Notice of Motion except by special leave of the Court. The procedure to be adopted is, as mentioned above, unusual and the term "Plaintiff', "Action" and "Defence" would seem to confuse a Notice of Motion with an ordinary Circuit Court Action. The time limits set out in the Rules must be closely followed. Although the application is termed an action, there is no need or provision for the service of a Notice of Trial. The original application (Form 2) sets the matter down for hearing and the Defence, if any, must be served within ten days after the service of the application and filed within seven days of such service—rule 13. The position is further confused by an almost iden- tical procedure under the same rules to deal with enforcement of awards made by the County Registrar under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1967. For the purpose of the record, the application which came before Judge Wellwood on 5th March 1973 was granted. The learned Circuit Judge did not give written judgment. He said he had a discretion which allowed in favour of the Plaintiff, but awarded costs to the Corporation (see Rule 15).

PRACTICE NOTE - Extension of time for compensation under Planning Act

219