The Gazette 1990

SEPTEMBER 1990

GAZETTE

relation to the drafting of legislation in the autumn. The Taoiseach replied by stating that getting bills processed through the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office was a problem for all Governments. Some of the Bills then on hand were complicated and required consideration in re- lation to constitutional aspects. However, the Taoiseach stated that he would keep trying. Mr. Shatter T.D. asked the Taoiseach in the Dáil, 401 Dáil Debates, col. 826, July 10, 1990, if the Taoiseach would indicate whether any particular person or persons in the Attorney General's Office would be given responsibility to draft legislation to implement the many outstanding reports pub- lished by the Law Reform Commission to deal with a variety of areas which demanded attention and which did not appear to have a political priority. The Taoiseach stated that he would reply to Deputy Shatter in the same terms as he had replied to Deputy Dukes. BU I LD I NG REGULAT I ONS Mr. Quinn, T.D. asked the Minister for the Environment in the Dáil, 401 Dáil Debates, col. 838, July 10, 1990, what action the Minister pro- posed to take to ensure that the seven local authorities, including Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation, who currently have legal responsibility for the admini- stration of building by-laws, to have the by-laws replaced with the Building Regulations as the standards referred to in the building by-laws were now in conflict with the recommended standards of the proposed Building Regulations, and their administration was in conflict with the achievement of efficient and good standards in the building industry; and whether the Minister would make a statement on the matter. The Minister for the Environ- ment, Mr. Flynn, stated that Section 22 of the Building Control Act, 1990 provided, subject to transitional provisions, that building by-laws shall cease to have effect in any area on the day on which Building Regulations first come into operation in that area. Work was well advanced inhis Department on

Edited by/Eamonn G. Hall, Sblicitor.

ments were ready. Walsh J added that the format suggested by the appellants appeared to be, at least in effect, what the Rules of Court required because unless docu- ments were identified and properly indicated no particular claim of privilege should be made about anything. The Rules of Court should be followed in the format envisaged by the Rules and so far as he was concerned the format sought in the motion was ineffect what the Rules required. Griffin and McCarthy JJ concurred with Walsh J. AT TORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE STAFF I NG Mr. Dukes T.D. asked theTaoiseach in the Dáil, 401 Dáil Debates, col. 825, July 10, 1990, whether the Taoiseach had any plans to increase the staff resources in the Office of the Attorney General. The Taoiseach stated that a com- petition was at that time being conducted by the Civil Service Commission for new posts of Assistant in the Office of the Attorney General. It was proposed to make up to four appointments. The Taoiseach stated that it was hoped that the persons appointed would take up office at the end of the summer. Mr. Dukes enquired from the Taoiseach if he would state whether the proposed strengthen- ing of the Attorney General's Office would improve the situation in

AFF IDAVIT OF DISCOVERY SHOU LD SPEC I FY PRECISE GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE RELIED ON In Bu/a Ltd. and others (plaintiff/ appellants) -v- Tara Mines Ltd. (defendants/respondents), The Irish Times Law Report, August 20, 1990, the Supreme Court (Walsh, Griffin and McCarthy JJ) held that in an affidavit of discovery the de- ponent should list and briefly describe each document over which privilege is claimed speci- fying in respect of each such document the precise basis or ground of privilege relied on. The appellants' motion had sought an order that all parties to the proceedings be at liberty to make discovery on or before 2 April 1990; that all parties to the proceedings do list and briefly describe in the respective affidavits of discovery each and every docu- ment in respect of which privilege was not being claimed; and that all parties to the proceedings do list and briefly describe (without dis- closing the contents thereof) each document over which legal, professional or other privilege was claimed specifying in respect of each such document the precise basis or ground of privilege relied upon. Walsh J said that there was no good reason why the orders made by Murphy J should not be carried out exactly as he had indicated, as there was nothing to be gained by postponing exchange when docu-

2 78