The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

JULY-AUGUST 1980

(Continued from page 129) his firm to be set out, the first-named plaintiff was, by letter from the Law Society dated 11 March 1977 in- formed of the grounds of complaint; and in addition that letter from the Law Society finished by again notifying the first-named plaintiff of the course of action that the Law Society proposed to take (i.e. applying for a freezing order). On 21 March 1977 the Law Society again wrote to the first-named plaintiff stating that unless his out- standing accountant's certificates were delivered within a week the Law Society would proceed. The first-named plaintiff did nothing and on 1 April 1977 the Law Society applied to the President (Finlay P.) for a freezing order. Although the application for a freezing order under Section 20(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1960, was an 'ex-parte' one in the first instance, in fact on that day the first-named plaintiff appeared before the President, who gave him an opportunity of saying what he wanted to say before the President made the order. On 4 April 1977 the first-named plaintiff gave guarantees to the High Court and agreed to lodge money in Court and to co- operate fully with the Law Society in allowing an inspection of his books of account; on that basis the President had discharged his order of 1 April 1977. Mr. Justice Butler then said he had to infer that the guarantees and undertaking were not complied with because on 7 April 1977, during the Easter vacation, the Law Society had to apply again to the High Court (Hamilton J.) which made an order re-imposing the freezing order and adjourning the matter to 18 April 1977. On 18 April 1977 and again on 29 April 1977 the first-named plain- tiff appeared with the Counsel before the President who on each occasion continued the freezing order. Mr. Justice Butler stated that he had no hesitation whatsoever in finding on the facts of the case that the Law Society had acted more than fairly and that both plaintiffs knew well everything that was going on; and that from 28 February 1977 on, if not sooner, both plaintiffs knew that, unless they co-operated with the Law Society, the Law Society was going to apply for a freezing order. The High Court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs claim.

PUBLICATIONS by the Law Reform Commission First Programme for Examination of Certain Branches of the Law with a View to their Reform. (Prl. 5984). [Price: 40p Net] Working Paper No. 1 - 1977, The Law relating to the Liability of Builders, Vendors and Lessors for the Quality and Fitness of Premises. [Price: £1.50 Net] Working Paper No. 2 - 1977, The Law relating to the Age of Majority, the Age for Marriage and some connected Subjects. (Price: £2.001. Working Paper No. 3 - 1977, Civil Liability for Animals. (Price: £1.50]. First Report (1977) (Prl. 6961) (Price: 40p Netl. Working Paper No. 4 - 1978, The Law relating to Breach of Promise of Marriage.[Price: £1.00 Net]. Working Paper No. 5 - 1978, The Law relating to Criminal Conversation and the Enticement and Harbouring of a Spouse. [Price: £1.50 Net]. Working Paper No. 6 - 1979, The Law relating to Seduction and the Enticement and Harbouring of a child. I Price: £1.50 Netl. Working Paper No. 7 - 1979, The Law relating to Consortium and Loss of Services of a Child.I Price: £1.00 Netl. Working Paper No. 8 - 1979, Judicial Review of Administrative Action: The Problem of Remedies. ÍPrice: £1.50 Netl. Second Report (1978-79) (Prl. 8855).(Price: 75p Netl. Working Paper No. 9 - 1980, The Rule against Hearsay. (Price: £4.00 Netl.

Available from: THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION, RIVER HOUSE, CHANCERY STREET, DUBLIN 7.

tur t l enecks

byCbariaa Hnehar

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT SOUR HCNCR, I OBJECT TD MDUR REFERRING ID A¥/ CUENTAS THE GLttLTV FBRTV HEHASN'T EVEN BEEN TRIED, e *ET./ s VJCH LESS FOUND GOILIV.

(Reprinted by permission of the American Bar Association

Journal).

131