The Gazette 1990

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGUST 1990

pes • UMM PETROCARGO MARWE SURVEYORS LTD.

outside the State scheme of civil legal aid and advice and on a different basis. The Minister stated that he was not in a position to assist in the funding of the centre because the monies that were voted by the Oireachtas for the provision of civil legal aid services were for the purposes of the State scheme exclusively. Furthermore, at a time of scarce financial resources, it was incumbent on him to channel whatever public funds were available to him to the State scheme. The Minister stated that the f u t u re improvement and development of our civil legal aid service would be based on the phased expansion of the State scheme, i.e. mainly through an increase in the number of law centres operated by and under the control of the Legal Aid Board. The Minister was satisfied that this was the proper way to proceed but, of course, progress would depend on financial circumstances. Family Mediation Service Mr. S. Barrett, T.D. asked the Minister for Justice in the Dail on April 25, 1990, 397 Dail Debates, cols. 2179-80, if he would make a decision regarding the future structure and operation of the family mediation service, arising out of the report which he received from the committee in September 1989 containing recommendations for setting up such a permanent structure. The Minister for Justice, Mr. Ray Burke, stated that the State family mediation service was set up in July 1986 as a three-year pilot scheme and the steering com- mittee of the service had submitted their report to him on the effective- ness of that pilot scheme. In the light of experience and the knowl edge gained f r om the operation of the pilot scheme, the Minister considered that a number of wider issues needed to be examined before decisions were reached on the long-term future of the service. To assist the Minister in this matter the Minister proposed to appoint a committee to examine all the various possible options - having regard, among other things, to such matters as mediation services provided privately, quality of service, geographical distri- bution, cost-effectiveness, etc. - and to advise him accordingly. The

attendance by the plaintiff in his previous emp l oymen t, wh i ch appeared to be connected with ill health. After further enquiries and discussions within the national association, the defendant on April 5, 1990 withdrew the offer of employment. The first issue was whether an unconditional contract of employ- ment had been concluded. The defendant contended that there was no concluded contract. In response, the plaintiff said, inter alia, that it was not enough that the defendant found the refer- ences unsatisfactory. The test was an objective one, and the facts must have been such that a reasonable employer would have regarded the references as not satisfactory. Mustill LJ said that there was no direct authority on that point, and it could be argued that cases such as Diggle -v- Ogston Motor Co. (1915) 84 LJ KB 2165 and Astra Trust Ltd. -v- Adams and Another [1969] 1 Lloyd's Rep 81, which dealt with "satisfactory" in other contexts, were distinguishable. However, Mustill LJ's strong inclination, without finally deciding the matter one way or the other, was that "satisfactory" should be given a subjective meaning in the present context. Mustill LJ considered that there was, however, no doubt that the Judge of first instance misdirected himself in regard to the second issue, which was whether the judge should have made the interlocutory order that he did. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on Powell -v- Brent London Borough Council [1988] ICR 176. In that case, because of the special facts and, as the court specifically said, by way of exception to the general principle that specific performance of contracts of service would not normally be ordered, the Court of Appeal granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the council from re-advertising the post in which the plaintiff was already working. The question was not whether it would be reasonable for the defendant to employ the plaintiff, but whether it should be forced against its will to employ him. Mustill LJ stated that the present case was far different from Powell because, inter alia, there was no

Marine Consultancy; Independent Marine Surveyors;

Marine Expert Witness; Ship to Ship Transfer;

Vessel & Terminal Safety Inspection; Recruitment; Procedures Manuals. Cooleen House, Rushbrooke, Cobh, Co. Cork. Tel: 021-811677 Fax: 021-813009 Capt. Thomas C. Nash M. INST. PET.

established employment relation- ship in which there was trust and confidence and which all parties were happy to continue. Instead, there was a stillborn relationship to which one party objected. The Court of Appeal considered that the plaintiff would therefore be most unlikely to obtain a final injunction at trial. For that reason, in addition to the questionable nature of the plaintiff's position on the first issue, the appeal should be allowed and the judge's order dis- charged. Ralph Gibson and Nicholls L.JJ delivered concurring judgments. Criminal Proceedings Evidence Mr. J Bruton, T.D. asked the Minister for Justice in the Dail on April 25, 1990, 397 Dail Debates, col. 2167, if the Minister intended to introduce legislation to imple- ment the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in regard to the admission of business records in evidence in criminal trials. The Minister for Justice, Mr. Ray Burke, stated that as already announced, proposals for a criminal evidence Bill were at an advanced state of preparation. The proposals provide for the admission of business records in criminal proceedings. He expected to circulate the Bill later in the year. Commun i ty Law Centres Mr. R. Bruton, T.D. and Mr. P. McCartan, T.D. raised the issue of Coolock Community Law Centre and the evolution of community law centres along the lines of the Coolock Centre. Mr. R. Burke, Minister for Justice at 397 Dail Debates, cols. 2150-51, April 25, 1990, stated that the Coolock Community Law Centre operated

212