The Gazette 1984

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGIJST

19

Correspondence

The Editor Law Society Gazette, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

14th May, 1984

15th May, 1984

The Editor Law Society Gazette, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

Dear Sir,

Re: Section 45 Land Act 1965 I note with interest the reference on page 73 of the Gazette for April 1984 on the subject of Statutory Instrument No. 144/1983. Immediately after the Statutory Instrument came into force we had cause to act for two British citizens in the purchase of a rural property, and as such were obliged to draft the necessary Certificate for the Transfer which was settled in consultation with the Land Commission, the Land Registry and the Building Society's solicitors in question. The following is the form of Certificate: "AND IT IS HEREBY (FURTHER) CERTIFIED by A.B. and C.D. who become entitled to the entire beneficial interest in the property transferred as follows: (a) That they are both (British) citizens and as such are each citizens of a Member State of the Euro- pean Economic Community. (b) that they both intend to live permanently in Ireland and as such are both exercising their rights of establishment under Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome, (c) that each of them is self-employed. and as such are persons not requiring the consent of the Land Commission within the meaning of Section 45 of the Land Act 1965." From our consultations with the Land Commission it is clear that the Commissioners interpret the Statutory Instrument as clearly requiring permanent residence and, therefore, the question of holiday homes or retirement homes where all parties on Title are not going to be engaged in full-time gainful self-employment while so resident in the premises within the State does not come within the Statutory Instrument. I trust that this information is of assistance to colleagues.

Dear Sir,

Re: A.G.M. 1984 I was very interested to read the letter from Michael O'Malley regarding the Report of the small attendance at the Society's A.G.M., and his purported reason for not being able to attend it. Perhaps members are not aware, possibly because they do not attend, and may not even read the Reports of A.G.Ms., that the date for the following A.G.M. is always fixed one year in advance. I quite frankly find that the excuse, which has been made for many years, of the timing of each A.G.M., is facile, and I believe that even if Mr. O'Malley's suggestion were to be followed, members would fail to attend equally as they have in the past. It seems to be forgotten that an Annual General Meeting of members does have a purpose, and that is for members to voice their opinions on the running of their Society. Over the many years that I have been present at A.G.M s., the attendance has always been derisory, and is an indication of the apathy of the members. If members are really interested in what goes on within the Society, they will find no great difficulty in making the effort to attend the A.G.M. Yours etc., Quentin Crivon, Solicitor, 94 Lr. Baggot St., Dublin 2.

Yours sincerely, Brian O'Reilly, B. P. O'Reilly & Company, Irish Permanent House,

Main St., Tallaght, Co. Dublin.

17th May, 1984

The Editor, Law Society Gazette, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

Dear Sir,

Re: A.G.M. 1983 I merely write to add support to the sentiments expressed in Michael O'Malley's letter, the April issue of the Gazette.

Mr. James J. Ivers, Director General, The Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. Dear Mr. Ivers,

9th May, 1984

Yours faithfully, Bernard Gogarty, Solicitor, 30 Magdalene Street, Drogheda.

I refer to your letter of 2 May, 1984 in which you refer to complaints being received from a number of your

144