The Gazette 1983

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1983

Correspondence The Editor, Incorporated Law Society Gazette, ™ • „ „ ,

practice of giving notice of decisions to persons who made representations is highlighted by the unfortunate series of events narrated above.

4.11.82

The Editor, Incorporated Law Society Gazette,

Planning Acts - Appeals

Dear Sir, We have recently come across a case where an objector has been effectively deprived of his right of appeal, by circumstances outside his control; in the case in question, the objector received on 19th January by post from the local Planning Office, a notification of their intention to grant Planning permission, which notice although dated 18th December, had been posted in an envelope franked 8th January 1982. He immediately on 19th January, sent an appeal to An Bord Pleanala. Subsequently, on 28th January, he received from the Planning Office, a copy notification of the final Planning permission, which notice was dated 23rd January 1982; the attention of An Bord Pleanala was at once drawn to this fact. Subsequently, by letter of 4th February 1982, An Bord Pleanala wrote to the effect that as the appeal had not been posted or delivered by 7th January 1982, they could not accept it. This situation was referred to the Department of the Environment, but despite several letters, it was only on 13th May 1982 that the Secretary to the Minister confirmed the ruling of An Bord Pleanala, and that the Minister had no function in the matter and could be of no assistance. The situation therefore is that where for some reason a letter from the Planning Office, as in the case in point, is not delivered within the appropriate time, the objector has lost his right of appeal. It would appear therefore that all objectors should in their own interests, check repeatedly in the Planning Office whether a decision has been issued. Yours faithfully, David Wilson, Solicitor,

Dear Sir, It is unacceptable that a Solicitor acting in a fiduciary capacity defrauds his clients of £150,000.00 and goes on to receive a suspended sentence of two years and another Solicitor (lately deceased) defrauds his clients of more than £750,000.00 This was far worse than the Erin Foods scandal owing to the privileged Solicitor-Client relationship, together with the fact that in the cases of Solicitors the offence was against individuals rather than a corporate entity. Each of us bears a certain amount of responsibility for these frauds and the writer supports our Representative Body (i.e. the Law Society) in taking further steps to supervise the accounts of it's members and in carrying out additional spot checks on Solicitors Accounts. In particular there is an onus on every firm of Solicitors to furnish to the Society an Accounts Certificate within six months of the end of its financial year and when this is not done the Society should have a 'trouble-shooter' Accountant to vet the accounts of the offending firms. No Practising Certificate should be issued to firms which are more than one year in arrears with their Accountant's Certificate. If such a step is not taken then the Profession will continue to number embezzlers among it's fold. Further, the writer recommends that the Society introduces compulsory courses in accounts and management for Solicitors and that every practice be required to have a partner or principal attend at least one such course during the year. Further, there is no reason why Professional Indemnity Insurance should not be compulsory for every practice.

Yours faithfully, Vincent Crowley, Solicitor, 77 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.

Raphoe, Lifford, Co. Donegal.

Editorial Note:

In the mat t er of Gordon J. Ross a solicitor (formerly practising as Ross & Co., at 29 Pearse Street, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath) and in the matter of the Solicitors' Acts 1954 and 1960. By Order of the President of the High Court dated the 24th day of January, 1983(1982 Numbers 1OSA, 11SA, 12SA and 13SA), the name of the above named solicitor has been struck off the Roll of Solicitors. James J. Ivers Director General

The above letter draws attention to the anomalous position of persons who make representations to a planning authority in relation to an application for a permission under Section 26 or 27 of the 1963 Planning Act while the planning authority is con- sidering such application. Such persons have no formal status under the Act and are not . "notice parties". Most, if not all planning authorities do in fact, as a matter of courtesy, notify the persons who have made representations to them in writing of the decision of the Planning Authority on the application. The danger of relying on the authorities'

19