A TRIBUTE TO OUTGOING PAST PRESIDENT BRIAN GALLAGHER

A TRIBUTE TO OUTGOING PAST PRESIDENT BRIAN GALLAGHER 

David Bergin, the recently elected President of the 

Association, needs no introduction to colleagues as 

he is one of the best known and most respected 

family lawyers in the country. Here he sets out his 

vision for the DSBA in the coming year. 

It is a great pleasure and indeed honour to write this, my first 

president’s message for our excellent magazine The 

Parchment. 

Having been appointed as President on the 1 st November last 

I am now in the job for ever two months. Already I am 

hugely impressed by the commitment and hard work of all 

the Council members, all of the Chairpersons of the various 

committees and all of the committee members themselves. 

The DSBA now represents over 3,000 Solicitors in Dublin 

and it is quite incredible that everyone involved gives of their 

time and effort entirely on a voluntary basis. There are very 

few organisations where this happens to such an extent. 

Despite the fact that we are a fast growing organisation we 

can not lose sight of main aims of the DSBA namely: 

To represent all of our members interests as best we can in 

relation to any issues which may arise and 

To emphasise and expand the collegiality aspect of the 

DSBA. 

As you know the last President of the DSBA was Brian 

Gallagher who was hugely successful and hardworking The 

amount of time and effort expended by Brian on DSBA 

issues was enormous and as a result we have taken major 

strides forward during the last year. 

I have no doubt that the coming year will be exciting and 

challenging. We are involved in a number of new initiatives 

which we are sure will greatly assist our members and will 

help us achieve our fundamental aims. 

The DSBA intends to improve and develop ‘Consult a 

Colleague’. This group has replaced the old Helpline. Whilst 

continuing to help and advise Solicitors in any way they can, 

we intend to expand the services provided by this committee 

to cover the giving of advice to and representation of 

colleagues who unfortunately may find themselves coming in 

front of the various disciplinary bodies of the Law Society. 

We intend to expand and improve the already highly 

successful seminars which have taken place and in particular 

intend to emphasise the importance of practice development 

by way of seminars, workshops and other initiatives. 

One of the great successes of the DSBA in the past has been 

the creation and improvement of this magazine namely the 

Parchment. I am quite sure that under the stewardship of 

Keith Walsh it will continue to provide essential information 

and news for our members. 

One of the great benefits of membership of the DSBA is that 

it gives everyone an opportunity to meet their colleagues at 

various seminars and functions throughout the year in an 

informal setting. It is my view that this is vitally important 

for our members as it leads to greater collegiality and 

co-operation between members both during their working 

day and after hours 

As we all know Solicitors these days are continually being 

attacked, criticised and undermined from various sources. 

We rarely if ever receive credit for any steps taken with a 

view to providing better services for our clients. This is clear 

from the recent Report of the Competition Authority which 

entirely ignored the major changes which have already taken 

place in our professions and which contained totally unfair 

and irrelevant criticisms. These of course provide continuing 

fodder for all sorts of people and groups to continue to 

criticise our profession. The DSBA will take all necessary 

steps to create a fairer and more accurate public perception of 

our profession. 

As an organisation we are in most respects separate from the 

Law Society. We are not a regulatory body and have no 

regulatory side to our activities. We are here to represent, as 

I have already said, the interests of our members and, during 

the coming year, with the help of all council and committee 

members I will do everything I can to achieve the 

fundamental goals of the DSBA. 

David Bergin 

As this is the first issue of the Parchment since the 

presidential baton was passed on from Brian 

Gallagher to David Bergin we thought it 

appropriate that we acknowledge the immense 

contribution made to the Association by Brian 

during his year. 

Brian was unstinting in his efforts to do better at 

the Association and endeavoured to make a real 

difference for practitioners. Carving out his own 

identity for the Association from the word go he 

identified the Practice management area as being 

of crucial importance to the profession and pushed 

it up the priority ladder in the fulfilment of the 

Association’s educational role. A series of 

practice management lectures were put together 

and presented to members throughout the year by 

Ann Neary and her team. These were an 

outstanding success and owed much to Brian’s 

foresight and vision. 

A further theme of Brian’s year related to the area 

of professional indemnity insurance cover. Brian 

was resolute in his determination to ensure that the 

membership would secure as much information as 

possible from the service provider and in a timely 

manner so that the membership could evaluate 

which insurer provided the most suitable sort of 

cover and as competitive a quote as possible. For 

the first time a number of service providers pitched 

for our business on the basis of a criteria set down 

by the Association. A selection of these insurers 

were given an opportunity at a DSBA seminar to 

stake out their stall and this was recognised by 

many as having been of real value to the 

Association . 

During Brian’s year too significant progress was 

made in relation to CPD-On Line project and the 

largest number of seminars ever were held. 

During Brian’s year too the Judiciary from the 

District, Circuit, and High Court were all provided 

with the hospitality of the Association and an 

exchange of views on an informal basis. At every 

opportunity Brian would promote the critical role 

played by solicitors in the administration of 

justice. 

Throughout all the social occasions Brian was very 

ably assisted by his beautiful wife Lucia. His 

conference in Rome was a stunning success where 

the itinerary was put together by Brian in his usual 

thoughtful and conscientious frame mixing the 

serious, with the informative, and not least social. 

Perhaps the only occasion in which I detected a 

note of discord from Brian was on the occasion of 

the mass in St. Michan’s for the opening of the law 

term upon the invitation of Judge Peter Kelly. It 

was remarked upon to him that the tradition of 

those of the main players attending was to wear 

morning suit and top hat. However, for an 

innately simple and utterly modest person such as 

Brian this was a step too far!. His best court suit 

and crisp white shirt would do just fine and none 

of this top hat nonsense!. 

Every President leaves his or own particular mark 

on the Association and Brian is no different and 

the DSBA is immensely grateful to him for his 

committed service and dedication during his year 

and no doubt he will join us in wishing his 

successor David Bergin the very best wishes in his 

term as President 

Kevin O'Higgins

BUILDING ENERGY 

RATING (BER) 

SYSTEM – THE 

IMPACT 

The Building Energy Rating (BER) 

System was introduced into Irish law on 

the 1 st of January 2007 by virtue of the 

EC Energy Performance of Buildings 

Regulation 2006 (S.I. No. 666 of 2006) 

(the “Regulation”). All EU countries 

were obliged to have such regulations 

transposed into national law by the 4 th 

of January 2007 as a consequence of the 

EU Directive 2002/91/EC on the Energy 

Performance of Buildings (the “EPBD”). 

General 

In general terms, the Regulation 

stipulates that every new home that 

comes on the market is required to have 

an energy rating provided by an 

independent inspector. The practice is 

designed to lead to energy efficiency 

becoming an integral concern for 

virtually every category of building with 

the result that a building’s energy 

performance will be a factor the 

significantly effects its values. 

Under the terms of the Regulation, for 

almost all buildings, a Building Energy 

Rating (BER) certificate, which is 

effectively an energy label and which 

may include a Carbon Dioxide indicator, 

is to be supplied by the owner/developer 

to any prospective buyers or tenants 

when sold or rented. 

The BER will be accompanied by an 

“Advisory Report” setting out 

recommendations for cost-effective 

improvements to the energy 

performance of the building. However 

there will be no legal obligation on 

vendors or prospective purchasers to 

carry out the recommended 

improvements. 

It is stressed in the EPBD that “the 

energy performance of a building shall 

be calculated on the basis of a 

methodology…that includes, in addition 

to thermal insulation other factors… 

heating and air-conditioning 

installations, applications of renewable 

energy sources and design of the 

building.” 

Operation and Scope of the 

Regulation 

Under the Regulation and the new 

energy rating system, from the 1 st of 

January 2007 the BER system will apply 

to: 

 

New dwellings that applied for 

planning permission on or after the 

1 st of January 2007 before they are 

offered for sale or rent; 

This requirement will be extended to all new non-residential buildings in July 

2008; and 

To existing buildings offered for sale or rent in January 2009. 

Certain categories of building are exempt under the Regulation such as buildings 

of historical and architectural importance, religious buildings and buildings of low 

occupancy or size. 

The BER system does not therefore apply to buildings granted planning permission prior 

to the 1 st January 2007. The upshot of these timeframes is that the majority of housing 

developments over the next two years will not be required to have a BER due to the 

considerable time frame for many developments between obtaining planning permission 

and completion of construction. 

The form of the BER Certificate is as follows: 

The BER certificate and 

Advisory Report must be 

produced by a BER assessor 

who is registered on the 

relevant national database as 

a BER assessor for that 

building category. The 

EPBD Implementation 

Group will oversee the 

training, certification and 

registration of BER 

assessors. 

Impact of the 

Regulation on 

Construction and 

Development 

According to the 

Department of 

Communications, Marine 

and Natural Resources, the 

impact that the Regulation 

will have on new 

construction projects is 

arguably limited. The 

Regulation does not 

prescribe new or tighter 

standards compared with 

those already in the Building 

Regulations. Part L of the 

Building Regulations deals 

with energy use of buildings 

and in relation to housing 

has been updated and tightened with effect from January 1 st 2003. As such, energy 

efficiency of buildings has already become an issue for developers, architects and 

builders and has received greater attention during project developments and design. 

The Regulation is aimed at encouraging better insulation of new and existing homes by 

allowing consumers to compare the energy efficiencies of homes they are interested in 

buying. Accordingly, it may be that some developers will see a commercial advantage in 

going beyond the requirements of the Building Regulations as the better energy 

performance will be reflected in the Energy Certificate and this may be seen as a 

marketing advantage. 

Conclusion 

Detailed above are the pertinent facts and issues in respect of the newly introduced BER 

system. Key points to note are as follows: 

Almost all buildings to be sold or rented must have a BER Certificate; 

The BER system is only applicable to houses which have applied for planning 

permission after 1 st January 2007. 

The requirement will extend to non-residential buildings in July 2008 and 

existing buildings in January 2009. 

The BER Certificate and Advisory Report must be produced by a certified BER 

assessor. 

The following websites are useful for information purposes: 

www.epbd.ie, www.energyaction.ie, www.sei.ie 

Ian Quigley, BCM Hanby Wallace 

CASE ABSTRACTS 

(Courtesy of First Law) 

Abuse of process, Practice and 

procedure, Res judicata 

Practice and procedure – Strike out – 

Frivolous and vexatious proceedings – Res 

judicata – Abuse of process 

Facts This was an appeal from the order of 

the High Court dismissing the proceedings 

against both defendants on the grounds that 

the pleadings did not disclose any cause of 

action and were frivolous and vexatious 

and also on the grounds of res judicata, the 

issue having been determined in Circuit 

Court proceedings. 

Held by the Supreme Court (McCracken, 

Kearns and Macken JJ) in affirming the 

decision of the High Court and dismissing 

the appeal that the proceedings could not 

succeed and had in any event already been 

determined in Circuit Court proceedings. 

Reporter: R.W. 

Lynch (plaintiff / appellant) v English 

(defendant / respondent) Supreme Court 

Mr. Justice Kearns, Ms. Justice Macken, 

Mr. Justice McCracken 20/10/2005 

189/02 & 272/03 [FL13048] 

Appeal, Intellectual Property, Trade 

Marks/Patents 

Intellectual Property – Trademarks – 

Appeal from decision to refuse to register 

mark – Confusion – False description – 

Connection trade in goods and relevant 

interest – Trade Marks Act 1963-1996 

Facts: The plaintiff sought to appeal the 

decision of the first named defendant to 

refuse to register its mark “800 Flowers” 

and “800 Florists” as trade marks in part A 

of the register. The application was 

opposed by the second named defendant, 

who contended that the registration would 

cause confusion, that there was no 

connection between the trade and the 

goods, that the marks were not intended to 

be used by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff 

had falsely described itself and that the 

registration was a tactic in a dispute with a 

third party. 

Held by O’ Sullivan J., the proposed mark 

was a trade mark and that the second 

named defendant did not have the relevant 

interest in the mark that would cause a 

substantial number of people in the market 

to become confused if the plaintiff 

succeeded. The evidence established an 

intention on the part of the plaintiff to use 

the trade mark in connection with the 

product in the course of trade. There was 

no evidence of a potential for confusion if 

the plaintiff were to use the marks sought 

to be registered. 

Reporter: E.F. 

The Zockoll Group Ltd (Formerly 

Phonenames Ltd) (plaintiff) v Controller 

of Patents Designs and Trademarks and 

1-800 Flowers.com Inc ( defendants) 

High Court Mr. Justice O’Sullivan 

17/10/2006 2006 No. 137 S.P [FL13067] 

Appeal, Judicial review, Planning and 

development law 

Planning law – Judicial Review – Leave – 

Certification to appeal - Exceptional 

public interest – Whether jurisdiction to 

grant certification point law exceptional 

public importance not from judicial review 

application but decision of court itself 

Facts: The Applicants sought certification 

to the Supreme Court of a point of law of 

exceptional public importance not arising 

from a substantive leave or judicial review 

application but from a decision of the court 

on the application for certification pursuant 

to s. 50(4)(f) of the Planning and 

Development Act 2000. The Court had 

found that insufficient grounds existed to 

find substantial grounds to grant leave for 

review. 

Held by Clarke J., that such a procedure as 

that sought would result in considerable 

delay and was contrary to the policy of the 

Act of 2000. The wording of the statute did 

not permit such a construction and the 

relief sought would be refused. 

Reporter: E.F. 

Arklow Holidays Ltd v An Bord 

Pleanala High Court Mr. Justice Clarke 

08/09/2006 2005 No. 291 JR [FL12997] 

Children and Young Persons, 

Custody, Family law 

Family law – Children – Application for 

recognition and enforcement of Residence 

and Contact Order - Child Abduction and 

Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 – 

Luxembourg Convention, Arts. 7, 10 and 

11 

Facts The applicant sought an order 

pursuant to article 7 of the European 

Convention on Recognition and 

Enforcement of Decisions concerning 

Custody of Children and on Restoration of 

Custody of Children (“Luxembourg 

Convention”) as implemented in this 

jurisdiction by the Child Abduction and 

Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 

for the recognition and enforcement of the 

Residence and Contact Order made in the 

Oxford County Court on the 22 nd July, 

2004. 

Held by Finlay Geoghegan J. in making an 

order under article 7 of the Luxembourg 

Convention that the respondent had failed 

to establish a ground for refusal under 

article 10 of the Luxembourg Convention. 


R (RGH) (applicant) v G (LM) 

(respondent) High Court Miss Justice 

Finlay Geoghegan 19/07/2006 2006 No. 

20 HLC [FL13050] 

Company law, Delay 

Company law – Rectification of register of 

members – Refusal to register plaintiff as 

member – Whether members acted in 

interests of the company as whole - Delay 

Facts This was an application for an order 

rectifying the register of members of the 

fifth defendant company to allow for the 

registration of the plaintiff as a member 

pursuant to s. 122 of the Companies Act 

1963. The crucial question in determining 

whether the refusal of the board of the 

company to register the plaintiff was 

without sufficient cause was whether or not 

the members acted in the interests of the 

company as a whole. 

Held by Laffoy in directing the 

rectification of the register of members that 

in refusing to register the plaintiff as a 

member the board were pursuing their own 

self interests and not the interests of the 

company as a whole. There was no 

evidence of any prejudice to the company 

by reason of the fact that the application 

was initiated more than two years after the 

refusal. 


Banfi Ltd v Moran High Court Ms Justice 

Laffoy 20/07/2006 2005 NO. 377 COS 

[FL13010] 

Criminal law, Delay, Prohibition, 

Sexual offences 

Criminal law – Delay – Sexual abuse – 

Prohibition – Whether there was a risk the 

applicant would not receive a fair trial as a 

result of the delay in prosecuting him. 

Facts The applicant appealed from the 

order of the High Court refusing to grant 

him an injunction restraining the 

respondent from taking any further steps in 

a number of prosecutions against him for 

sexual offences alleged to have been 

committed by him, while he was employed 

as a teacher on four of his pupils in the mid 

1960’s. The applicant alleged that there 

was prosecutorial delay and submitted that 

by virtue of the delay between the dates of 

the alleged offences and the date of his 

proposed trial there was a real risk he 

would not receive a fair trial. In the High 

Court, O Caoimh J. concluded that the 

delay complained of was referable to the 

applicant’s own conduct. 

Held by the Supreme Court (Murray C.J., 

Denham, Hardiman, Geoghegan, Fennelly 

JJ) in dismissing the appeal: That the 

delay in this case did not result in prejudice 

to the applicant such as would give rise to 

a real or serious risk of an unfair trial. 

Furthermore, no wholly exceptional 

circumstances arose in this case whereby it 

would be unfair to allow the trial to 

proceed. 

Reporter: L.O’S. 

H (applicant / appellant) v DPP Supreme 

Court Mrs. Justice Denham, Mr. Justice 

Fennelly, Mr. Justice Geoghegan, Mr. 

Justice Hardiman, Chief Justice Murray 

31/07/2006 389/2004 & 467/2004 

[FL13052]

Criminal law, Drink driving 

Criminal law – Evidence - Validity of 

opinion of arresting garda – Whether 

direction by gardaí to commit illegal act 

affects validity of evidence or 

prosecution – Garda forming opinion 

that accused intoxicated to such extent 

that incapable of driving – Garda 

subsequently directing defendant to 

drive car to side of road – Whether 

amounting to direction to commit illegal 

act – Whether vitiating arrest 

Facts The accused was stopped by a 

member of the gardaí and informed that 

he had formed the opinion that the 

accused had committed an offence 

contrary to s. 49 of the Road Traffic Act 

1961, as amended. The arresting garda 

then directed the accused to drive his car 

to the side of the road and stop whence 

he was arrested. At the conclusion of the 

evidence in the District Court, the 

accused applied for a direction that he 

be acquitted on the grounds that his 

arrest had been unlawful by reason of 

the fact that the arresting garda, having 

purportedly formed the opinion that the 

accused had committed an offence 

contrary to s. 49 of the Act of 1961, as 

amended, then required him to drive his 

car in circumstances which deprived 

him of his liberty and that the 

requirement was one to commit a 

criminal offence. It was also contended 

that the illegality associated with the 

arrest tainted the evidence obtained 

thereafter. The District Judge refused 

the application but agreed to state a case 

to the High Court as to (a) whether the 

arrest of the accused was lawful in 

circumstances where the arresting garda, 

having stated that he had formed the 

opinion that the accused had committed 

an offence contrary to s. 49 of the Act of 

1961, then required the accused to 

continue driving; and (b) in the 

alternative, whether the requirement that 

the accused continue driving sufficient 

to vitiate the garda’s opinion that the 

defendant had committed an offence 

contrary to s. 49. 

Held by Ms Justice Dunne in answering 

the first question posed in the 

affirmative and the second in the 

negative. 

1. that the fact that a garda has requested 

one to do an illegal act did not, of itself, 

amount to authority to an individual to 

do that illegal act. 

2. That, as there was no causative link 

between the act complained of and the 

obtaining of evidence, the defendant had 

not been prejudiced thereby. 

3. That, in the circumstances where 

there was a finding of fact that the garda 

had formed the necessary opinion, it 

could not be vitiated by subsequent 

events. 

Reporter: P.C. 

DPP v Penny High Court Her Hon. 

Judge Dunne 27/07/2006 2006 73 S.S 

[FL13013] 

Immigration, refugee and asylum 

law, Judicial review 

Immigration – Asylum – Judicial review 

– Leave – Whether respondent failed to 

take into account adequately or at all 

the applicant’s HIV status 

Facts The applicant sought leave to 

apply for judicial review quashing the 

decision refusing her refugee status. The 

applicant contended that there were 

materials before the Tribunal that placed 

the Tribunal itself on inquiry as to 

whether the applicant would be a victim 

of discrimination as an HIV positive 

woman in South Africa. 

Held by McMenamin J. in granting 

leave that the applicant was entitled to 

apply for judicial review on the grounds 

that the first respondent failed to take 

into account adequately or at all the fact 

or significance of the applicant’s status 

as an HIV positive person in the 

consideration of persecution in the 

future and as to her membership of a 

particular social group in the 

consideration of whether State 

protection was available to her. 


Msengi v Minister for Justice, 

Equality and Law reform High Court 

Mr. Justice MacMenamin 26/05/2006 

2005 No. 456 J.R [FL12984] 

European law, Judicial review, Planning 

and development law, Statutory 

interpretation 

Judicial review - Leave to appeal to 

Supreme Court - Statutory interpretation 

– Words and phrases – Point of law of 

exceptional public importance – Test to 

be applied – Planning and 

environmental law – European law – 

Whether point of law of exceptional 

public importance raised – Planning and 

Development Act 2000, section 

50(4)(f)(i). 

Facts the High Court had declined the 

applicant’s application for judicial 

review of a decision of the respondent in 

respect of a waste recovery facility it 

planned to operate. The applicant 

applied for leave to appeal to the 

Supreme Court on points of law of 

exceptional public importance, being: 

whether Council Directive 75/442/EEC 

was properly construed as meaning that 

the proximity principle did not apply to 

waste for recovery within national 

boundaries; whether the policy issued by 

the Minister for the Environment 

pursuant to section 60 of the Waste 

Management Acts in respect of the 

movement of waste was relevant to the 

determination by the respondent of an 

appeal in relation to a proposed waste 

recovery facility in circumstances where 

some of the waste to be treated was 

generated outside the waste management 

planning region in which that facility 

was located and; whether, where the 

respondent was obliged to have regard 

to a ministerial direction issued pursuant 

to section 60 of the Waste Management 

Acts, a rebuttable presumption arose 

that it did have such regard. 

Held by Mr Justice MacMenamin in 

refusing leave to appeal to the Supreme 

Court on a point of law of exceptional 

public importance that the restriction 

imposed by section 50(4) of the 

Planning and Development Act 2000 

indicated an intention that the planning 

process not be hampered by an 

unrestricted access to the courts which 

could cause delays, which restriction 

was to be lifted only in exceptional 

cases. That the test of exceptional public 

importance in that context meant: (1) the 

requirement went further than that a 

point of law emerged in or from the 

case; (2) the jurisdiction to certify such a 

case had to be exercised sparingly; (3) 

that the law in question stood in a state 

of uncertainty; (4) where leave was 

refused in an application for judicial 

review, a question could arise as to 

whether, logically, the same material 

could constitute a point of law of 

exceptional public importance; (5) the 

point of law had to arise out of the 

decision of the High Court and not from 

discussion or consideration of a point of 

law during the hearing; (6) the 

requirements regarding “exceptional 

public importance” and “desirable in the 

public interest” were cumulative 

requirements which required separate 

consideration by the court; (7) the test 

was not whether the point of law 

transcended the individual facts of the 

case; (8) normal statutory rules of 

construction applied which meant that 

“exceptional” had to be given its normal 

meaning; (9) uncertainty could not be 

imputed to the law by an applicant 

simply by raising a question as to the 

point of law rather the uncertainty had to 

arise in the daily operation of the law in 

question and; (10) some affirmative 

public benefit from an appeal had to be 

identified. The fact that the finding by 

the High Court involved an 

interpretation of European Community 

law did not render it a point of law of 

exceptional public importance. 

Reporter: P.C. 

Teoranta v An Bord Pleanala High 

Court Mr. Justice MacMenamin 

13/07/2006 2005 No. 1309 JR, 2005 No. 

120 COM [FL12987] 

COMMERCIAL LAW 

Allotments for non-cash 

consideration 

Solicitors are reminded that the abolition 

of capital duty in respect of shares issued 

on or after 7 December 2005 has not 

affected the requirement to file a form 

52/contract where shares are issued for 

non-cash consideration. If shares are 

issued for cash consideration, the Form 

B5 can be filed directly at the Companies 

Registration Office. However if shares 

are issued for non-cash consideration, a 

form 52/contract must continue to be filed 

in duplicate with the Revenue 

Commissioners. 

Jurisdiction Clauses and 

Brussels Regulation 

In Nestorway Limited trading as 

Electographic International v 

Ambaflex B.V. (Clarke J, 19 July 2006) 

the High Court had to determine whether 

a distribution agreement contained an 

effective choice of forum clause for the 

purposes of article 23 of Council 

Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (“the Brussels 

Regulation”). The agreement was 

expressed to be governed by Dutch law 

and made reference to standard conditions 

frequently used in respect of the sale of 

goods in The Netherlands in relation to 

warranties and after sales service. Those 

terms and conditions specified that the 

courts of The Netherlands had jurisdiction 

to resolve disputes between the parties. 

The dispute in issue did not relate to 

warranties or after sales service but rather 

the purported early termination of the 

agreement. In the absence of specific 

Dutch law evidence, Clarke J held that it 

had not been proved that the jurisdiction 

of The Netherlands courts had been 

applied to the contract as a whole rather 

than simply the warranties and after sales 

service provisions. He also considered 

the provisions of article 5 of the Brussels 

Regulation (place of performance of a 

contract) and emphasised that the onus 

rests upon the party bringing the 

proceedings to establish that jurisdiction 

is conferred on the basis of article 5. The 

place of performance of the contract must 

be construed in accordance with the 

governing law of the contract which in 

the case being considered was Dutch 

law. Solicitors are reminded that when 

advising on a contract where the 

contracting parties are domiciled in 

different jurisdictions it is important to 

specify the forum for the resolution of 

disputes expressly and unambiguously in 

the contract. 

Exclusivity Agreements 

Often, when parties are in discussions 

with each other in relation to a 

transaction, one party will request that the 

other enter into an exclusivity agreement 

with it undertaking not to deal with any 

third parties in relation to the subject 

matter of their discussions. Careful 

drafting of an exclusivity agreement is 

crucial to ensure that the agreement is 

enforceable. In a recent High Court 

case,Triatic Limited v Cork County 

Council, Laffoy J found the reasoning of 

the House of Lords in Walford v Miles to 

be persuasive and approved it for the 

purposes of Irish law, holding that 

agreements to negotiate in good faith 

(often referred to as lock-in agreements) 

even with a time limit imposed for those 

negotiations are unenforceable because 

they lack the necessary certainty. 

However the judgment of the House of 

Lords in Walford and of the Irish High 

Court in Triatic makes it clear that an 

agreement not to negotiate with a third 

party will be enforceable if it is for a 

fixed period and it is supported by 

consideration or made under seal. When 

drafting exclusivity agreements, care 

should be taken to ensure that the 

exclusivity period is fixed, certain and 

reasonable. 

Rectification of Register of 

Members 

In Banfi Limited v Noel Moran, Karina 

Ray & others, Laffoy J considered the 

directors’ refusal to register a share 

transfer in accordance with the Articles of 

Association which provided that “the 

Directors may, in their absolute 

discretion, and without assigning any 

reason therefor, decline to register any 

transfer of any share, whether or not it is 

a fully paid share.” Laffoy J directed the 

rectification of the register of members 

and held that in refusing to register the 

plaintiff as a member, the directors were 

pursuing their own self-interests and not 

the interests of the company as a whole. 

The applicable principles were as set out 

in Courtney’s book on the Law of Private 

Companies. She noted that to succeed on 

its application to have the register 

rectified pursuant to section 122 of the 

Companies Act 1963, the plaintiff must 

discharge the burden of proving that the 

directors did not act bona fide in what 

they (rather than the court) considered to 

be in the interests of the company as a 

whole. Laffoy J also noted that section 

122 creates a statutory remedy of 

rectification and it has not imposed any 

time limit for bringing such an 

application, although she noted that 

situations could arise in which a Court 

would consider that it would be 

inappropriate to exercise its discretion 

because of delay in bringing an 

application if it was shown that delay was 

prejudicial to the company. (note: this 

judgement is also reported in case 

abstracts). 

Deirdre-Ann Barr 

Additional Powers in 

Companies Bill 

The Investment Funds Companies and 

Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2006 has 

been passed by both Houses of the 

Oireachtas. At Report Stage in the Dáil, a 

number of amendments were made to the 

Bill. These include: 

New provisions with regard to the 

status of statutory declarations made 

abroad for the purposes of theCompanies 

Acts. The new provisions confirm that 

such statutory declarations made by Irish 

practising solicitors or by a person such 

as a public notary authorised in the state 

to administer oaths will be acceptable. 

Declarations made before persons such as 

a public notary are expressly required to 

conform with arrangements regarding 

authentication under conventions to 

which Ireland is a party. The amendment 

also confirms the retrospective validity of 

statutory declarations made abroad which 

have already been delivered to and 

registered in the Companies Registration 

Office in accordance guidance which was 

previously issued by the CRO. 

Section 33 of the Companies Act 1963 

and Section 21 of the Companies 

(Amendment) Act 1983 are amended to 

explicitly permit a private company to 

make offers of the type which benefit 

from exemptions under the Prospectus 

Regulations or which otherwise fall 

outside of the scope of these Regulations. 

An increase the permitted number of 

members of a private company to 99 in 

line with the recommendations of the 

Company Law Review Group (CLRG). 

Clarification on the application and 

transitional arrangements with regard to 

the increase on exemption thresholds for 

accounts which are being implemented by 

the Bill. 

Clarification with regard to the status 

of a statement made by an expert in 

respect of a prospectus under Section 45 

of the Investment Funds Companies and 

Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005 

Additional powers with regard to the 

EU Transparency Directive are given to 

the Irish Auditing and Accountancy 

Authority (IAASA)

ODCE Guidance on Audit 

Committees 

Following a public consultation process, 

the Office of the Director of Corporate 

Enforcement has published Decision 

Notice D/2006/1 - Guidance on Audit 

Committees. The Decision Notice sets out 

the principal duties and powers of Audit 

Committees and provides further 

guidance for their operation. 

Section 42 of the Companies (Auditing 

and Accounting) Act 2003 requires 

certain types of companies to have an 

audit committee. The requirement applies 

to all public limited companies, 

qualifying “large private companies” and 

“relevant undertakings”. 

An audit committee is a committee of 

company directors required to regularly 

assess the validity of the company’s 

financial and other reporting 

arrangements as well as overseeing its 

internal and external audit processes. 

Audit committees will have a range of 

functions with regard to the accounting 

duties of the company, the appointment 

of auditors in relation to audit and 

non-audit work and other functions as 

may be assigned. 

The provisions of Section 42 have yet to 

be commenced. 

Privity of Contract and 

Third Party Rights 

The Law Reform Commission (LRC) 

have published a Consultation Paper on 

Privity of Contract: Third Party Rights. 

The LRC has provisionally recommended 

that subject to certain limitations, the 

privity of contract rule should be changed 

so that a third party who the contracting 

parties clearly intended to benefit from 

their agreement will be able to sue if the 

agreement is not carried out properly. 

The Consultation Paper examines the 

existing law on privity of contract and the 

problems encountered in practice as a 

result of the rule of privity. Particular 

problems are identified in the 

construction, insurance and shipping 

sector. The Paper also examines 

difficulties with regard to exemption 

clauses, professional negligence and with 

regard to consumer contracts. 

New EU Measures for 

PLC’s 

The European Commission has published 

Directive 2006/68/EC amending the 

Second Company Law Directive. The 

new Directive contains measures to 

facilitate the allotment of shares for a 

consideration other than in cash by public 

limited liability companies without 

requiring them to obtain a special expert 

evaluation. 

The Directive also includes measures to 

allow public limited liability companies 

to acquire their own shares up to the 

limit of the company’s distributable 

reserves. It also facilitates the granting of 

financial assistance by public limited 

liability companies with a view to the 

acquisition of their shares by a third 

party (subject to certain limits). The 

measures require Member States to 

ensure adequate safe guards for 

shareholders and third parties including 

creditors. Member States are required to 

transpose the directive no later then 15 

April 2008. (OJL264/32) 

Credit Union Limits 

Increased 

Credit Unions are regulated by the 

provisions of the Credit Union Act 1997 

as amended by the Central Bank and 

Financial Services Authority of Ireland 

Act 2003. 

Section 27 of the 1997 Act set certain 

limits on the aggregate liabilities a Credit 

Union may hold in respect of deposits 

from members also limited the amounts 

which may be held on deposit by a 

member of a Credit Union. The Minister 

for Finance has now increased the 

threshold for aggregate liabilities of a 

credit union in respect of deposits from 

members to be 100 per cent of its 

aggregate liabilities in respect of shares 

issued to members. The Minister has 

also increased the deposit limits so that a 

member may now hold on deposit a sum 

not in excess of 100,000 and may hold 

an aggregate claim or interest in shares 

not to exceed 200,000. Credit Union Act 

1997 (Alteration of Financial Limits) 

Order 2006 (SI 453/2006). 

Section 21 of the Credit Union Act 1997 

provides for the nomination by a 

member over the age of 16 of a person 

or persons to become entitled at his or 

her death to the whole or such parts of 

his or her property which he or she may 

have at the time of his or her death. 

The Minister for Finance has published 

Regulations increasing the threshold 

amount for such nominations to 23,000 . 

The Minister has also increased the 

threshold amount payable as a “small 

payment on death” under Section 23 of 

the Act to 15,000. Credit Union Act 

1997 (Alteration of Financial Limits) 

Regulations 2006 (SI 546/2006). 

John Furlong 

FAMILY 

LAW 

UPDATE 

Pre-Nuptial 

Agreements 

In determining ancillary property and 

financial relief claims upon separation 

and divorce, the courts have very 

wide-ranging powers to make various 

orders, including lump sum orders, 

maintenance payments, property 

adjustment orders, orders for the sale of 

property and pension adjustment orders. 

The net value of all “family” assets must 

be put before the court and a decision is 

then made as to how these assets should 

be divided between the spouses to ensure 

proper provision for both spouses and any 

dependent children. There are no 

automatic entitlements or shares for 

distribution upon marital breakdown and 

each case must be considered on its own 

facts and circumstances. There exists, 

therefore, a great deal of uncertainty and 

unpredictability in family law litigation at 

present. As a result, there has been some 

considerable interest in the area of 

Pre-Nuptial Agreements in recent times, 

particularly in “high net worth” cases, 

both as a wealth preservation tool and to 

endeavour to achieve some certainty in 

family law disputes.A Pre-Nuptial 

Agreement is essentially an agreement 

between an engaged couple to specify 

what would happen in the event of their 

marriage breaking down. No longer the 

preserve of the rich and famous, the 

“Pre-Nup” is now increasingly being 

considered by wealthy individuals in this 

jurisdiction in an attempt to safeguard 

their position in the event of marital 

breakdown. 

To date, although the Irish courts have 

not considered their legal effect, it is clear 

that pre-nuptial agreements are not 

automatically binding and enforceable in 

Ireland for reasons of public policy. 

Nonetheless, many people have chosen to 

enter into a pre-nuptial agreement since it 

may at least serve to record the intent of 

the parties and their respective financial 

positions at the time of marriage. In this 

regard, full disclosure of all financial 

resources, tax planning advices and 

independent legal advice are vital 

components in the execution of a 

pre-nuptial agreement. It would also be 

advisable that the agreement refer to 

contingencies, for example, the passage 

of time and/or the birth of children. 

An expert group has now been set up to 

advise the Government on whether, and 

to what extent, pre-nuptial agreements 

should be recognised in Ireland and this 

area will certainly be watched with 

interest by family lawyers and engaged 

couples alike. This group will be chaired 

by Inge Clissmann SC and has been 

requested to prepare its report by the end 

of March 2007. The terms of reference of 

the group are to report on the operation of 

the law since the introduction of divorce 

having regard to the possible impact of 

pre-nuptial agreements “taking into 

account the constitutional requirements”. 

If there is a recommendation that these 

agreements should be taken into account 

when deciding ancillary relief cases, it is 

the writer’s view that the law could quite 

simply be changed to add them to the list 

of factors which the courts are already 

obliged to take into consideration, while 

reserving the final word as to proper 

provision to the trial judge, having regard 

to the particular circumstances. In the 

meantime, in the absence of binding 

pre-nuptial agreements and given the 

current uncertainty in the courts, many 

commentators are of the view that the 

only safe advice to give any wealthy 

individual is not to marry under any 

circumstances! 

Cohabitation 

The Law Reform Commission published 

its Report on the Rights and Duties of 

Cohabitants on 1 December 2006 

(www.lawreform.ie). Launching the 

Report, Minister McDowell TD said that 

“Irish society has changed greatly in 

recent decades and family law has not 

evolved at the same pace to match the 

altered social reality. The reality is that 

many people now reside in domestic 

relationships which are not founded on 

marriage”. Cohabiting couples accounted 

for more than one in 12 family units in 

2002 as against one in 25 in the previous 

census of 1996. As at the date of writing, 

the results of the 2006 Census are still 

awaited. 

The LRC Report sets out a series of 

recommendations for cohabitants across a 

range of areas to include an 

encouragement to cohabitants to register 

their relationship and enter into 

appropriate legal agreements on financial 

matters eg property co-ownership 

agreements. The Report also advocates 

the adoption of a “safety net” redress 

scheme for qualified cohabitants ie a 

couple who has cohabited in an intimate 

relationship (whether same sex or 

opposite sex) for at least three years, or 

two years if they have a child. This would 

allow a cohabitant apply to court for 

financial relief at the end of a relationship 

or on the death of the other cohabitant 

provided economic dependency on the 

co-cohabitant can be shown. The court 

could then make a variety of orders in 

areas such as maintenance, division of 

pensions and property. The Report also 

sets out further provisions for the 

recognition and treatment of cohabitants 

under social welfare law, taxation, private 

tenancies, domestic violence and in health 

care settings. These are set out in more 

detail in the LRC Report. 

Around the same time, the Working 

Group on Domestic Partnership 

established by the Minister for Justice in 

March 2006 and chaired by Anne Colley 

Solicitor published its Options Paper. 

This set out a wide range of options for 

the recognition and consequences of 

“domestic partnerships” in Ireland, to 

include full civil partnership and 

same-sex marriage. 

However, it remains to be seen what 

developments may flow from the 

publication of these reports. It also 

appears unlikely that any real progress 

will be made until after the next general 

election. 

Recent Judgments 

2006 was a busy year for family law in 

the courts. Various high profile cases 

were decided in the course of the year, to 

include the “Baby Ann” adoption case, 

the embryo custody case and the claim for 

recognition of a same-sex marriage. 

These have brought into sharp focus the 

emergence of new or alternative family 

units in Ireland and the changing fabric of 

our society. We are also promised a 

Referendum on the Rights of Children but 

the timing and content of the proposed 

referendum is as yet unknown. 

The High Court also dealt with several 

ample resources cases in the course of the 

year, dealing with the concept of proper 

provision in ancillary relief cases. A 

series of “second bite of the cherry” cases 

also came before the High Court to 

determine the impact of “full and final 

settlement” clauses in divorce 

proceedings following a separation 

agreement or Consent Terms reached in 

the course of separation proceedings. 

Varying decisions were reached in these 

cases and a number of judgments were 

handed down in late November although 

they are not yet generally available. It is 

also understood that one or more of these 

judgments are likely to be appealed. In 

effect, it is impossible to distil a general 

principle from these cases as the weight 

to be attached to a prior settlement 

appears to vary from case to case 

depending on the particular 

circumstances. 

The High Court judgment in the Trusts 

case of TM v TM was also handed down 

in the course of 2006. The bulk of the 

assets in this case were comprised in a 

discretionary trust established by the 

husband’s family. A preliminary issue 

had initially arisen as to whether the lands 

and property comprised within the Trust 

could be considered by the courts when 

determining the question of proper 

provision. McKechnie J held that it could 

and that the trust in question fell within 

the definition of a post-nuptial settlement 

which would be capable of variation. It 

was also held that the term “settlement” in 

family proceedings has a broader 

meaning than under strict trust or taxation 

laws. As this was a preliminary ruling, it 

did not fall to McKechnie J to determine 

how the trust assets were to be divided so 

as to achieve proper provision. However, 

in the final hearing in March 2006, 

Abbott J made various orders for the 

division of the trust assets between the 

husband and the wife, although it is 

understood that this decision is now under 

appeal. 

There was also a great deal of interest in a 

number of English “big money” decisions 

in the course of the year, to include the 

Miller and McFarlane decisions in May 

2006 which attracted huge media 

attention and it will be interesting to see 

whether these decisions are to be 

followed in this jurisdiction. 

Appointment of the Family 

Law Reporter 

One other development of note in the area 

of family law in 2006 was the 

appointment of Dr Carol Coulter in her 

role as Family Law Reporter. The 

appointment is initially for a period of 

one year with a view to identifying how 

information on the work of the family law 

courts can best be disseminated to the 

judiciary, the wider legal community, the 

media and the general public. This will 

involve reporting significant judgments 

and decisions of the High, Circuit and 

District Courts, the compilation of 

statistical information relating to the work 

of these courts and the drafting and 

distribution of family law information for 

general publication. 

Hilary Coveney, Matheson Ormsby Prentice 

Chair of the Family Law Committee 

Advance Notice - Collaborative Law 

There will be a training course in Basic 

and Intermediate Collaborative Law in 

Dublin on 26 and 27 March 2007. 

Interested parties should contact Niamh 

O’Hanlon of the Legal Aid Board 

(01 6441923 or 

nmohanlon@legalaidboard.ie) for further 

information. 

A Practice Development Day will also be 

organised by the Irish Association of 

Collaborative Practitioners to be held on 

Saturday 31 March 2007 in Cork. 

Further information on this date is available 

from Anne O’Neill Solicitor at 023 41322.

LITIGATION - BACK 

TO BASICS 

Basic Guide to Personal 

Injuries Assessment 

Board/Personal Injury 

Procedure 

Most members may find this simple guide 

to procedure for personal injuries as 

surplus to requirements or too basic to 

consider, however, there is certainly no 

harm in revisiting the fundamentals and 

members who do not practice exclusively 

in personal injury cases will hopefully get 

some benefit. 

Remind me? What cases are 

involved? 

Section 3 of the PIAB Act, 2003 sets out 

that the PIAB procedure must be adopted 

in a civil action for 

Employee against his/her employer for 

negligence or breach of duty arising in the 

course of employment with that employer. 

Action by a person against another arising 

out of that others ownership, driving or 

use of a mechanically propelled vehicle. 

Action by a person against another arising 

out of that others use or occupation of 

land or any structure or building. 

Not falling within any of the proceeding 

paragraphs other than cases of medical or 

surgical negligence. 

Do I need a section 68 letter for 

these cases? 

Yes a Section 68 letter must be issued to 

the client setting out where possible the 

costs that will be incurred for you to 

conduct the case for the client through the 

PIAB. With recent developments and 

particularly the costs report and indeed the 

new overall focus on legal fees its seems 

to be expected that solicitors would quote 

an hourly rate as opposed to basing a fee 

on the possible quantum size of the case. 

It is preferable that the client would sign 

the section 68 letter which should be 

retained on the file. 

How do we approach the Personal 

Injuries Assessment Board? 

Form A1 must be completed by the client 

at instruction stage if possible and also in 

addition the solicitor should get a letter of 

authority from the client addressed to 

PIAB explaining that PIAB is from that 

point forward to deal with that applicant’s 

solicitor and not directly with the 

applicant. The Law Society have produced 

a precedent which suffices for this task. 

Do I contact PIAB or the 

Defendant/Respondent? 

An initial letter should be sent to the 

Defendant/Respondent advising them of 

the client’s cause of action and offering 

them the opportunity to compensate at that 

stage. This should be done within two 

months of the date of the incident 

concerned or as soon as practicably 

possible thereafter. There are new 

implications in relation to costs where this 

tight time frame is not adopted. As before 

where there is potentially more than one 

Defendant/Respondent the “O’Byrne” 

letter must issue to the relevant parties. 

What happens next? 

Depending on the response received (if 

any) you should then be in a position to 

formally lodge your application with 

PIAB. In order to do so you require the 

following. 

Completed application form. 

Original letter/authority from the claimant 

to PIAB. 

Medical report from the client’s doctor. 

Copies of any correspondence between 

the client and the Respondent or the 

client’s solicitor and the 

Respondent/Insurance Company. 

Any vouchers, receipts or documentary 

proof in respect of any financial loss 

suffered by the client/loss of earnings. 

Cheque for 50.00 payable to PIAB. 

Any other documentation relevant to the 

claim. 

How long does it take? 

The solicitor should immediately seek to 

get acknowledgement from PIAB that the 

application is deemed received and 

complete under section 50 of the PIAB 

Act, 2003. Remember that the Statute of 

Limitations continues to run until this 

formal notification is received. Once 

received the Statute of Limitations is on 

hold until the claim has been dealt with 

and until six months thereafter. 

Is that all it takes? 

There may be further or additional 

information required by PIAB. They may 

refer your client to a medical attendant. 

PIAB will effectively engage the 

Respondent with a view to settling the 

claim provided they accept full liability. If 

the Respondent decides to have the claim 

assessed then your client should quantify 

in so far as possible the loss incurred and 

also make reference to the Book of 

Quantum before accepting or rejecting any 

assessment amount. 

What happens if the Respondent declines 

to have the claim assessed? 

PIAB will issue an authorisation to 

proceed to court. Pleadings should be 

drafted and issued through the appropriate 

court office and the authorisation from 

PIAB will be necessary to do this. 

Teething problems are still being 

experienced when solicitors attempt to 

issue these proceedings and the DSBA is 

attempting to iron out these administrative 

problems with Court Services but the 

intention is that a Personal Injuries 

Summons will be issued and served on the 

Defendant. 

What happens if the Respondent accepts 

liability but the client refuses to accept the 

amount of the assessment? 

It is important to note that under section 

51(1) of the PIAB Act the PIAB 

procedure is effectively “without 

prejudice” and no admission of liability 

within the PIAB procedure will be 

permitted in the substantive proceedings 

themselves. In these circumstances it 

could be viewed that the entire procedure 

is a waste of time and of no assistance in 

deciding the case either way. However, 

the commencement of court proceedings 

opens the matter as if for the first time, or 

“ab initio”. 

Aaron McKenna, Chair of the Litigation 

Committee 

Note: the Lawsociety have prepared 

precedents for practice for PIAB which 

can be accessed in the members area of 

the Lawsociety website 

www.lawsociety.ie 

Warning – 30 TH March 2007 

Statute of Limitations 

Deadline Approaching– 

Check your litigation files 

The Litigation Committee wishes to 

remind members that the 30 th of March 

2007 is fast approaching. What is the 

significance you might ask? You may 

recall that the Civil Liability and Courts 

Act, 2004 under section 7, reduces the 

Statute of Limitations in respect of 

personal injury claims from three years to 

two years. The commencement of the 

section was the 31 st of March 2005 and 

this means that the two year period in 

question expires on the 30 th of March 

2007. This affects cases post 31 st March 

2004 up to 31 st March 2005, as the 

limitation period for incidents that 

happened between these dates expires on 

the 30 th of March 2007. 

Members are reminded of the importance 

of section 50 of the Personal Injuries 

Assessment Board Act, 2003 which 

stipulates that the clock on the Statute of 

Limitations stops running as soon as the 

application is acknowledged to have been 

received completed by PIAB. It is 

common practice for PIAB to 

“acknowledge” receipt of the application 

but not to specifically state in their 

replying correspondence that the Statute 

of Limitations stops running in accordance 

with section 50 of the said Act. Members 

should insist that they get this 

acknowledgment from PIAB if they do 

not receive it automatically. Members 

should also bear in mind that once PIAB 

has furnished an authorisation under the 

2003 Act allowing a client to proceed to 

court that the two year Statute of 

Limitations does not continue until six 

months has elapsed after the date of the 

authorisation. This provides obviously an 

extra period of time in which to prepare 

proceedings or otherwise, however, the 

Litigation Committee would strongly urge 

that members give themselves plenty of 

time and possibly implement some kind of 

an organised diary reminder system in 

order to avoid any close calls. 

Aaron McKenna, Chair of the Litigation 

Committe 

CONVEYANCING 

e-conveyancing 

GO SOFTLY INTO THE NIGHT– 

rising to the challenge of 

e-conveyancing and the new future 

of conveyancing following the Law 

Reform Commission’s Report, 

Justin McKenna sets out the way 

forward 

The Property Registration Authority 

(PRA) is going to have to pull the legal 

profession all the way if it is going to 

succeed in making econveyancing a 

reality. The technology is there. All we 

have to do is join up the thinking. 

The Law Reform Commission in its recent 

report adopted the model assembled by 

BearingPoint in which agents like 

solicitors are lined up on one side of a hub 

while information providers like the Land 

Registry are positioned on the other. The 

thing is, whatever this hub is supposed to 

do, it has to enable land deals to happen 

from a pc or an ipod. 

Buy it, bank it, or even blog it but the 

rules for living in it, labouring in it, or just 

lingering in it will be governed by what it 

says on the tamperproof website. The 

written word will be on the internet and 

accessible by all. Enforceability of the 

rules (or what we used to call 

“covenants”) will have nothing to do with 

positive or negative points of view. The 

new principles of conveyancing will be 

governed by money and virtual signatures. 

The digital hub will control the key to 

ownership and the management of charges 

over land. 

The paper free solution should, 

coincidentally, provide us with a cure for 

the thorny problem of how to buy, sell, 

mortgage or manage an apartment. 

Buying an apartment will be as easy as 

buying a share in a company. 

Changing the way we do things will 

require the cooperation of all the vested 

interests. These include solicitors, banks, 

insurance companies, revenue, 

auctioneers, managing agents and others. 

At present each acts for the benefit of 

itself and its own client but this system 

can be adversarial. The concept of ‘buyer 

beware’ has no place in the vision ahead. 

The cooperative experiment must go 

further. It will also include the 

registration authorities beginning with the 

PRA, ordnance survey, the court services, 

local authorities and others. These offices 

do not have clients in the conventional 

sense since they are public bodies. There 

is a commonality that is relevant to us as 

practitioners. They all contain lawyers. 

But the survival of all the vested interests 

depends on how each service is to be 

financed. The Competition Authority 

already plays an active role in this area. 

When the system is drawn to its logical 

conclusion the consumer will face a single 

charge to be disbursed throughout. The 

frontline service provider plays a critical 

role in setting the mark for remuneration. 

The challenge ahead for the legal 

profession is to educate the profession in 

the prospect of the inevitable, prepare its 

graduates for adaption and then take the 

lead in ensuring that the solicitor becomes 

the digit in the hub. 

Justin McKenna is a past President of 

the DSBA, a member of the 

Conveyancing Committee and spoke at 

the December 2006 Conveyancing CPD 

seminar on dealing with the practical 

implications of the Law Reform 

Report. 

More Information on 

e-conveyancing 

At the DSBA seminar in December 2006 

Ms. Patricia Rickard Clarke updated 

practitioners on the implications for 

conveyancers of the Land Conveyancing 

and Law Reform Bill and the Report and 

Frank Lanigan highlighted ways 

solicitors can use technology to become 

more efficient. The papers from the 

December 2006 Conveyancing CPD can 

be ordered from the DSBA, email: 

maura@dsba.ie for details of price and 

availability. The Law Reform 

Commission’s report can be viewed in 

full on their website www.lawreform.ie 

and the Autumn 2006 Parchment 

contains a summary of the Law Reform 

report by Garbhan O’Nuallain. 

PRACTICE 

MANAGEMENT 

2007 – The year of Training 

In 2006, the DSBA in association with 

Anne Neary Consultants ran a number of 

very successful seminars in the area of 

practice management throughout the year. 

The idea arose from a meeting between 

Brian Gallagher and Anne Neary at our 

first regional meeting in Rosie O’Grady’s 

Harold’s Cross where Brian had invited 

the solicitors working in the Dublin 6, 6w 

and Dublin 12 areas to meet him to raise 

the issues facing solicitors in practice and 

so that the DSBA could better address the 

interests of its members. 

The type of issues which were discussed 

at that meeting indicated that there was a 

general concern among members about 

the more difficult climate in which 

everyone found themselves working. The 

problems extended from the lack of time 

to properly manage their practices to their 

own lack of training and expertise in 

practice management issues. There was a 

discussion concerning the increase in 

regulation and how solicitors could equip 

themselves to deal with the amount of 

criticism expressed in the media. 

That meeting started a chain of events 

which resulted in a very ambitious plan – 

devising a completely comprehensive 

practice management system for 

solicitors, which would be supported by a 

major publication on practice 

management, seminars, and ultimately 

extend to training. 

We therefore presented two major 

seminars on practice management called 

Building a Dynamic Profitable 

Practice, a seminar on banking Banking 

– How to Add Value to Your Bottom 

Line and published Anne Neary’s The 

Solicitor’s Toolkit. 

We covered a comprehensive range of 

topics – see below - and invited experts in 

many disciplines to address us. We 

covered traditional topics and cutting 

edge topics, but always within our vision 

of a comprehensive management system. 

Everything we do in the area of practice 

management is used as a building block 

for the next step. 

Effective Billing Strategies 

Financial Management 

Risk Management 

Information Technology 

Knowledge Management 

Dynamic Marketing Strategies 

Building your website 

Banking

Staff 

Maximising the income produced by a 

file 

Building your Brand 

So, what is the next step? – our vision for 

2007. Our aim this year is to get the 

training component of our practice 

management system up and running. The 

training will encompass initially 

Workshops for Solicitors and one-day 

Training Courses for Legal Secretaries. 

These workshops will help our members 

with the implementation of the policies and 

procedures contained in The Solicitor’s 

Toolkit. 

The Training Courses for Legal Secretaries 

will be based on Anne Neary’s new 

Toolkit, The Legal Secretary’s Toolkit. 

We at the DSBA recognise the vital role 

which staff play in the success of our 

members practices. Without our 

wonderful staff, their expertise, work and 

loyalty, our practices would not exist. We 

want to help you build their skills, make 

their careers rewarding and develop their 

potential. 

This year, we will also be offering over 40 

Toolkit forms, policies and precedents on 

CD Rom. 

Helene Coffey is our new Programmes 

Director for this year. She describes staff 

training as vital if members are to run 

efficient practices. She is working with 

Anne Neary in the design of the courses. 

We will be reporting back to you to let you 

know how this new venture is progressing. 

Our aim at the DSBA is to empower our 

members to deal with the challenges of day 

to day practice and to provide them with 

the necessary tools to help them do this. 

Any suggestions or comments from our 

members would be warmly welcomed and 

can be emailed to us at maura@dsba.ie. 

David Bergin 

President 

PROBATE – BACK TO 

BASICS 

Renowned probate specialist Anne 

Stephenson goes back to basics and gives 

FIVE REASONS TO MAKE A WILL 

and advises that while you’re at it, make 

one for yourself ! 

An excellent opportunity arises when your 

client is completing the purchase of a 

property to discuss with him or her the 

drafting of their will. This not only 

provides the client with a valuable and 

additional service, which they need, but 

also adds to your bank of wills which 

hopefully will in the future lead to further 

business. 

Of course, this is not a part of the 

conveyance and should be billed for 

separately. 

1. A will allows the client and not the 

state, via the Law of Intestacy as set 

out in the Succession Act 1965, to 

decide on the devolution of his assets 

on his death by means of a clear legal 

document. 

2. A will allows the client and not the 

state, via the Succession Act 1965, to 

decide on who is the most appropriate 

person to carry out the administration 

of their estate. 

3. A will obviates the need for a bond 

which while much simpler since the 

Direction of the of the President of The 

High Court issued on the 27 th July 

2004 re Justification of Sureties can 

still cause a problem. See previous 

article on same in the Spring 2005 

Parchment, page 7.(this is available 

to view on the DSBA website at 

www.dsba.ie) 

4. A will allows the client to receive 

estate planning advice and thus 

dispose of their assets in the most tax 

efficient manner. 

5. A will allows the client to provide for 

the special needs of family members 

for example to set up the most 

appropriate mechanism to protect any 

children with special needs. 

Avoid the cobbler’s children syndrome and 

do not neglect to advise yourself to make a 

will! 

Anne Stephenson, Solicitor and member of the 

Probate Committee, practices in her own firm 

at 55, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, County 

Dublin 

CONTEMPORANEOUS 

ATTENDANCE NOTES 

All practitioners will be interested in the 

recent Judgement of Mr. Justice Kelly in 

the case of the Balla Lease Developments 

Ltd. (Plaintiff) and David Keeling 

(Defendant) delivered on 21 st December 

2006 and his remarks concerning the 

keeping of contemporaneous attendance 

notes by a Solicitor. 

It emerged that during the hearing of this 

case that the Solicitor for one of the parties 

had created attendance notes several years 

after the event, largely from memory. The 

attendance notes were dated as of the date 

of the meeting/phone call, rather than the 

date of their creation, creating the 

misleading impression that they were 

contemporaneous with the events which 

they described. The attendance notes were 

later disclosed in the course of Voluntary 

Discovery with no distinction between 

those attendance notes which had been 

prepared contemporaneously and those 

which had been prepared long after the 

events they described. 

Notwithstanding the settlement of the 

matters in dispute between the parties, Mr. 

Justice Kelly took a very serious view of 

the conduct of the Solicitor in question and 

then went on to exercise the High Court’s 

Disciplinary Jurisdiction over Solicitor and 

found that the Solicitor’s conduct fell short 

of that which the Court is entitled to expect 

in the way in which the Solicitor dealt with 

the Discovery in this case. Mr Justice Kelly 

said that the creation of attendances by the 

Solicitor “… from memory years after the 

event without the fact of such creation 

being disclosed until it was challenged was 

a serious departure from what the Court 

was entitled to expect”. The Court took 

into account certain mitigating factors and 

in conclusion accepted an Undertaking 

from the Solicitor to make a substantial 

contribution to a charity rather than impose 

a fine. 

The Judgement dealt with out issues also, 

all of which will be of interest to 

practitioners. I would urge you to read the 

Judgement in full. A copy can be obtained 

from the DSBA office. 

John P. O’Malley. 

VISIT 

THE 

DUBLIN 

SOLICITORS 

BAR 

ASSOCIATION 

WEBSITE 

w.w.w.dsba.ie 

CIVIL LITIGATION - 

PROOFS 

COUNTY REGISTRAR’S 

MOTIONS – DUBLIN CIRCUIT 

PROOFS 

NUMBER ONE 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGEMENT IN 

DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE 

IN CLAIMS FOR:- 

Liquidated sums 

Return of goods/chattels 

Recovery of possession 

Damages – see final paragraph below 

A. THE ORIGINAL SEALED CIVIL 

BILL WITH PARTICULARS OF 

SERVICE ENDORSED (Particulars of 

service must be endorsed within three days 

of service). 

B. DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF 

SERVICE OF CIVIL BILL. 

In cases where service has been effected 

by registered post under the Courts Act, 

1964, the Declaration/Affidavit must 

contain an averment that the particulars 

of service were endorsed within three 

days of service. 

Where service has been effected by post, 

the Declaration/Affidavit should contain an 

averment that the envelope has not been 

returned undelivered. 

Where service has been effected company 

pursuant to the Companies Acts, the 

Declaration/Affidavit must contain an 

averment that the registered office was 

served. 

Where a sub-service has been granted, the 

Declaration/Affidavit must contain an 

averment that the sub-service order was 

served along with the Civil Bill. 

C. THE NOTICE OF MOTION. 

D. A FULL GROUNDING 

AFFFIDAVIT. This should set out the 

basis of the claim with supporting 

documents exhibited. 

E. A DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF 

SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF 

MOTION AND GROUNDING 

AFFIDAVIT. 

See comments above as appropriate. 

F. CERTIFICATE OF NO 

APPEARANCE 

The proofs required in motions for 

judgement in default of Appearance 

where the claim for damages is to be 

assessed at trial are the same as the 

above, save for the Grounding Affidavit, 

which should contain an averment that 

no Appearance has been entered, etc. 

Helene Coffey 

NUMBER TWO 

MOTIONS FOR JUDGEMENT IN 

DEFAULT OF DEFENCE IN 

CLAIMS 

FOR:- 

Liquidated sums 

Return of goods/chattels 

Recovery of possession 

Damages – see final paragraph below 

A. THE ORIGINAL SEALED CIVIL 

BILL. 

B. THE APPEARANCE. 

C. THE NOTICE OF MOTION 

D. A FULL GROUNDING 

AFFIDAVIT setting out the basis of the 

claim with supporting documents 

exhibited. The Affidavit must contain an 

averment that a Defence has not been 

delivered. 

E. A DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF 

SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF 

MOTION AND GROUNDING 

AFFIDAVIT. 

Where service has been effected by post, 

the Declaration/Affidavit should state 

that the envelope has not been returned 

undelivered. 

Where service has been effected on a 

company pursuant to the Companies Acts, 

the Declaration/Affidavit must contain an 

averment that service was on the registered 

office. 

The proofs required in motions for 

judgement in default of Defence where 

the claim for damages is to be assessed 

at trial are the same as the above, save 

for the Grounding Affidavit, which 

simply contains an averment that no 

Defence has been delivered, etc. 

Helene Coffey

MASTER HAS HIS 

WINGS CLIPPED 

Here at The Parchment, we are firm 

believers in the old maxim that what goes 

around comes around, so we shall refrain 

from anything resembling Schadenfreude 

when reporting on the result of Kennedy v 

Killeen which has become known as the 

“wasted costs” case. 

You may recall that this all began in 

February 2006 when the Master of the 

High Court, Edmund Honohan made an 

order against a solicitor under the 

provisions of Order 99 Rule 7 stating that 

the solicitor should be personally 

responsible for the costs of bringing a 

motion for interrogatories which the 

Master deemed to fall within the category 

of cases in which a wasted costs order 

could be made. He also took the highly 

unusual step of appointing a solicitor for 

the Plaintiff in the event that his order 

was appealed. 

This decision was, not surprisingly, 

appealed to the High Court and was heard 

by the then President of the High Court, 

Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan. Finnegan P. 

delivered his judgment on 28 November 

and made two significant findings. In the 

first instance, he found that the Master of 

the High Court, who is not a judge, had 

no jurisdiction to make the order at all. 

His powers are limited and Finnegan P 

felt that if it had been intended to allow 

him make such a draconian sanction, then 

it would have been expressly stated. It 

was not and therefore, the Master 

exceeded his jurisdiction in making the 

order. 

Secondly, and possibly of more 

significance, he found that the exercise of 

this power by a judge should be done 

sparingly and, following the English 

authorities, only in cases involving gross 

negligence and not negligence 

simpliciter. 

So, one assumes that will be the first and 

last such order emanating from the 

Master’s Court. Oh, and remember the 

DSBA wrote to the Master following the 

original decision and sought meeting with 

him to help him with his concerns. 

We’re still waiting for a reply. 

Stuart Gilhooly 

PIAB COME UNDER 

THE MICROSCOPE 

October had started so well for PIAB. 

The usual periodical press release about 

how quick and how cheap they are was 

followed by some effusive self praise 

about what a wonderful achievement it 

was to settle 4,000 cases in two and half 

and years. There then followed a trip to 

the Oireachtas where the Chairperson and 

Chief Executive indulged in one of their 

favourite pastimes of solicitor bashing. 

Although they could barely be heard over 

the din of backs being slapped, they 

managed to accuse six firms of 

attempting to bring down PIAB on their 

own – without naming them of course, 

lest they might want to defend 

themselves. The general gist of which is 

if you let those pesky solicitors loose on 

our claimants, they might actually tell 

them to turn down some of the awards 

because, whisper it, they might do better 

in court. 

So, as they walked out of government 

buildings on 18 October, they cannot 

have foreseen the tsunami that was 

building up in the offices of the Irish 

Independent. Because on 31 October, 

Dearbhail McDonald, the Legal Affairs 

Correspondent of that newspaper, broke a 

front page story following an 

investigation into the actual efficiency of 

the PIAB operation. Using PIAB’s own 

figures, she discovered that PIAB had 

made awards in less than one in eight 

claims lodged and that it was facing 

major problems with dealing with the 

outstanding claims within the statutory 

nine month period. 

Well, what followed was less of a 

tsunami and more of a whirlwind of 

vitriol. On that Halloween day, the 

airwaves were crackling with accusations 

of scare-mongering and horror stories as 

Patricia Byron and Dearbhail McDonald 

went head to head on two radio shows 

and, suffice it to say, there were no hugs 

and kisses at the end of it all. 

What PIAB cannot deny, however, is that 

this time, an award winning journalist, 

with no axe to grind, has exposed their 

inadequacies using their very own 

figures. In addition, Eamon Devoy of the 

Technical Electrical Engineering Union, 

described the PIAB project as a “fiasco”. 

To add insult to injury, they are now 

being criticised from beyond the grave by 

the late and eminent High Court judge, 

Sean O’Leary who, in an extraordinary 

posthumous attack, expressed his regret 

that the “the manner of its establishment, 

the backgrounds of those in charge and 

the general tone of their interaction with 

the community created a culture where all 

claimants for personal injury can be 

characterised as ‘insurance fraudsters’”. 

In the meantime, a number of opposition 

TDs, led by Deputy Jim O’Keeffe, have 

been asking searching questions of 

Minister Micheal Martin which he is 

continuing to bat away for the time being. 

But how much longer can government 

continue to have blind faith in a system 

that is riven with delay and inefficiency? 

As they rush awards out now with 

unseemly haste, mistakes are being made. 

News has reached me of a person’s 

confidential medical report being sent to 

a completely different claimant with his 

award. One hopes that this is an isolated 

incident because it is hard to imagine 

anything more serious. 

Will the government ask themselves the 

hard questions now as an election 

approaches? Will they listen to the 

unhappy union chiefs? Can PIAB start to 

produce real results or will they continue 

to flatter to deceive? 

These questions will be answered in time 

but all the while, we have a job to do and 

its more important than ever. We must 

critically examine the quality of the 

awards that are being made and if they 

are good enough, they must be accepted. 

But, if not, we must stand our ground and 

advise our clients accordingly. They 

expect us to advise them without fear or 

favour and that is what we must do. 

Anecdotal evidence so far indicates that 

very few rejected PIAB awards have not 

been beaten in court. 

Who knows what the new year will bring 

but one thing is sure, it won’t be quiet. 


COMPETITION 

AUTHORITY 

REPORTS AT LAST 

Nothing new here, folks. We’d love to 

say that it was eagerly anticipated but 

truth was nobody was really bothered. 

After five years of investigation, the 

Competition Authoirty basically 

regurgitated its original report of nearly 

two years ago with a few minor changes. 

Here at The Parchment, we produced a 

comprehensive A-Z summary of the first 

report and we really don’t see the point of 

doing it all over again. 

Many of the reports recommendations 

relate to the Bar and others have been 

overtaken by events. Probably the one 

issue which will interest the profession is 

the suggestion that licensed conveyancers 

should be introduced. This has failed 

miserably in both England Scotland and 

even were it to be brought in here, it is 

unlikely to make any difference in the 

highly competitive conveyancing market 

where the word “cut-throat” seems to be 

understating it a little. 

Other than that, it’s the usual arguments 

about regulation and education, all of 

which were exhaustively covered in the 

first report. 

Time will tell whether government take 

any notice of the recommendations but 

whether they do or not, we have no need 

to be afraid of change. As a profession, 

we always adapt well and rise to new 

challenges. 


TRAINING FOR 

SOLICITOR 

ADVOCATES 

On Friday 22nd October last a group of 

30 solicitors from all over the country 

gathered in the Law Society for the 

beginning of a weekend of advocacy 

training, jointly run by the Law Society 

and the DSBA. Three tutors had been 

invited from NITA, the National Institute 

of Trial Advocacy based in the United 

States. NITA, a not for profit 

organisation, was founded over 35 years 

ago in response to a request from judges 

that lawyers have some formal advocacy 

training before they get on their feet and 

" .. 1 

\ . Ii! 

experience the all too familiar and painful 

process of ‘learning by losing’. 

The three American tutors were 

energetic, professional and positive. From 

their backgrounds as practicing lawyers, 

law professors and judges, each brought 

many years experience to a group that 

was vastly differing in experience. (This 

course differed from previous advocacy 

courses run by the Law Society and 

NITA which had required that 

participants have seven years PQE.) The 

American tutors were ably assisted by 

Irish solicitor volunteers who had 

previously completed the week-long 

advanced advocacy ‘boot camp’ for 

solicitors of seven years PQE and over. 

A case file had been prepared of 

particular interest to criminal law 

solicitors and the group of thirty was 

subdivided into three groups of ten, with 

five ‘prosecutors’ and five ‘defence 

' 

I 

I 

solicitors’ per group. The scenario 

outlined in the case file was that of a ‘bar 

room brawl’ out of which someone had 

been charged with assault under s.3 of the 

Non Fatal Offences Against the Person 

Act. Students from the Law School 

played the accused, his girlfriend and 

friend, as well as the ‘injured party’ and 

his girlfriend. Examination in chief and 

cross examination skills were developed 

with the kind and always constructive 

criticism of the tutors. Each participant 

also had an opportunity to sit on the 

‘jury’ and it was fascinating to consider 

proceedings from the vantage point of the 

decision maker. 

We emerged, blinking, from the Law 

Society on Sunday after a robust and 

thoroughly enjoyable weekend’s training. 

There was much comment to the effect 

that this was the best CPD that any of us 

had attended. The opportunity to develop 

advocacy skills outside of the courtroom 

was extremely valuable. 

Many thanks again to Rachel D’Alton of 

the Law Society and Maura Smith of the 

DSBA whose hard work and 

professionalism ensured proceedings ran 

with ease. 

Claire O'Regan 

Dublin Solicitors Bar Association Council 2007/2008

Newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, and former solicitor 

Joe Finnegan is a lawyers’ judge. Polite and courteous to 

colleagues, patient and accommodating to the inexperienced , 

reasoned, clear and rationale in his judgments. Here, Kevin 

O’Higgins meets Judge Finnegan and found him , as always, 

more than willing to give of his time, and happy to talk to the 

Parchment 

A recent study was featured on The Tubridy Show some months 

back. As part of a thesis a particular law student was being 

interviewed by Ryan Tubridy on her findings . Her study looked 

at the appointment of judges, their social background and their 

standing. Unfortunately my attempts to retrieve the work were 

not successful but my recollection of its conclusions were that 

judges in general terms are- male, appointed in their early 

fifties, may have flirted with politics to some degree and 

typically will have been educated at the middle class bastions of 

Clongowes, Blackrock, Gonzaga , Belvedere, et al. 

Joe Finnegan, recent President of the High Court , and now 

newly appointed Judge of the Supreme Court does not fit that 

convenient stereotype. In fact, by any objective assessment he 

epitomises the very opposite. That perception, perhaps, fuelled 

by studies such as that undertaken by our law student above and 

whose conclusions were essentially that the judiciary (and 

perhaps lawyers in general) are from an exalted echelon - 

removed, detached and (of course the ubiquitous 

description)“aloof” from society in general. 

Not Joe Finnegan! 

He grew up in Inchicore in west inner city Dublin. His was not a 

legal family. His grandfather had worked for Guinness and his 

father was in business. Synge Street CBS was followed by his 

secondary schooling as a boarder in St. Mary’s in Dundalk. Run 

by the Marist Fathers, he found the school to be “enlightened” 

with the small classes and the diversity of education giving the 

students a breadth of knowledge equal to none. 

The early sixties were times when those drawn to the professions 

just went straight in and “signed up”. It was the exception to 

choose to pursue a degree course in advance. Joe was drawn to 

UCD where he undertook a BCL /LLB course. University life 

then was a social hub with a great cross- pollination of friends 

and acquaintances drawn from the various faculties. Being in 

Earlsfort Terrace meant that you were right in the centre of 

things. Students did not have much money then but a little could 

go a long way. For a half crown (30 cents ) you could get a night 

out for two in the Gaiety Theatre, share one programme between 

you and still have enough left for a coffee!”. From this 

interviewer’s experience I asked him whether he was a 

frequenter of Hartigans’ but, no his gang were more drawn to 

Lamb’s across the road (now “Hourican’s” ). His 

contemporaries at the time would have included Tommy 

Enright, Brendan Walsh, Frank O’Donnell and Liam Gaynor to 

name but a few. If not in the adjacent watering holes he and his 

mates would be found in “DBC” (The Dublin Bread Company ) 

which was a quaint café (now long gone ) beside the Huguenot 

cemetery on Merrion Row. 

He had decided to pursue a career in the solicitors profession and 

while in Earlsfort Terrace was also attending lectures in the then 

Incorporated Law Society of Ireland located attached to “The 

Solicitors Building” in the Four Courts. He secured an 

apprenticeship with Darach Connolly whose offices were in the 

beautiful iconic building admired by all at “Sunlight Chambers” 

on the corner of Parliament Street overlooking the river. 

Having qualified in 1966 he was happy to take on as his first a job 

a position with McKeever and Sons where the partners, then, 

were Billy McGuire and Godfrey Skrine. Richard Black had also 

joined the firm at that stage. Being an old established firm he got 

stuck in to title and probate and pretty much everything that was 

thrown his way. After a year or so a position had become 

available in the Law Society. The then Secretary ( now called 

“Director General” ) was Eric Plunkett and the position of 

Assistant Secretary had been created sometime beforehand. Joe 

decided to go for the job and was successful. One of his 

predecessors would have been the present High Court Judge 

Tommy Smyth who by that stage had left to go to the Bar. Joe 

had a particular interest in the educational function of the Law 

Society and is credited with having put in place many of the 

foundation blocks which we now enjoy today. 

He left the Law Society after five years, but, the Bar had not yet 

beckoned. Throughout the mid-seventies he was running his 

own solicitors practice which soon became a four partner firm 

including Michael Kelly, Benny Gaughran, and Noel McDonald. 

He was keen on property and title matters and felt there might be 

an opening for him in this area of practice at the Bar. Instead, he 

began to build up a phenomenal practice as a general all rounder 

but particularly in title, landlord and tenant, and other property 

matters. As former Judge Hugh O’Flaherty remarked about him 

that he was the “last of the old hack barristers”. “ I took that as a 

compliment meaning that I was the sort of lawyer who was 

prepared to take on a case from start to finish, do all the hard work 

and present it in court”. At the height of his practice he had up to 

one hundred and fifty firms instructing him on a regular enough 

basis, so clearly his hard work and attention to his large coterie of 

solicitors was paying off. 

Although he found himself acting for Ray Burke,( the disgraced 

Fianna Fail politician,) he had no political leanings whatsoever. 

Again that perception is thrown asunder.! All the more so again 

with his appointment as High Court Judge in 1999 and 

subsequently as President of the High Court in 2002. Renowned 

for his immense work ethic Judge Finnegan involved himself in 

every aspect of judicial administration in the High Court. Was 

he a bad delegator, then , I asked with temerity to which he 

replied modestly: “ Maybe so but I just felt that there was so 

much happening , I felt I had a duty to be informed on a first hand 

basis and if this meant having to read every blooming report, 

attend interminable committee meetings then so be it, that’s what 

it took. I just got on with it. ” 

With his administrative role it was entirely normal for Judge 

Finnegan to be working six days a week and more often seven . I 

asked him as to the extent of that commitment and he measured 

the administrative function alone as close on 50% of his time and 

conceded to regretting the loss of real “judicial time”. 

He may have been inaccurately reported as favouring the 

practice as adopted in some American courts of embracing 

television in the courts. He favours very much the embodiment of 

the principle that justice be done in public. More often than not 

courts are populated by the litigants, the lawyers and not much 

else. Anything that assisted the engagement of the public in a 

measured and controlled manner and which minimised the 

opportunity for showboating by witness or lawyer alike would be 

beneficial to enhancing that sacred mantra. 

As to the recent media commentary about sentencing policy and 

perceived inconsistencies throughout the judicial system he 

reminds me that the judiciary-certainly in the Higher Courts have 

access to an information based system which can give a 

sentencing judge guidance as to norms and comparisons. “These 

sort of systems are available in other jurisdictions. The fact that a 

guilty plea and acknowledgment by the Gardai that the accused 

had assisted them can be factors to be taken into account and can 

often explain why there can be discounting factors to the so 

called Mandatory Sentences.” 

Having spent close on five years as President of the High Court, 

being involved in some very celebrated and high brow decisions 

( including, more recently the Shell – Rossport contempt 

hearings, the Ratemylawyer challenge and the “Wasted Costs 

Order” hearing he was delighted to accept the nomination to the 

Supreme Court. 

How different is it, I asked, sitting on the Supreme Court as 

distinct from the hurly burly atmosphere of a High Court. He 

agreed that it is different, that one has more time to ponder and 

contemplate, that the subject matter is perhaps weightier and of 

course of more consequence - being an appellate court. 

Although he is only finding his feet in the court at the moment he 

will miss, as any other Supreme Court judge would also, the cut 

and trust of cross-examination being the litmus test of a person’s 

guilt or innocence, credibility or dishonesty, telling it as it is or 

over egging one’s complaints. 

A keen sports enthusiast, Joe inherited his father’s passion for 

motorcar and motor cycle racing. His father had being a keen 

enthusiast and participant so that Joe grew up with a deep interest 

in cars . In his case, however, his preference was for the two 

wheel variety and from an early age was always messing about 

on motorbikes. To this day, in this traffic congested city, he will 

occasionally use the bike as a form of transport. A life long 

francophile he is known to have taken many a jaunt on the bike 

across France and Spain. A passionate and very knowledgeable 

rugby enthusiast he played for Blackrock RFC winning a hat-full 

of junior medals before finally, playing his last match at the age 

of 49! Is it any wonder that he is as sprightly and dapper as he 

appears.! 

His heart-felt advice to a young lawyer would be to endeavour to 

be a problem solver rather than just a purveyor of legal advice. 

Having been so heavily immersed in non-contentious law in his 

earlier days he realised that an instructing solicitor did not want 

to hear that his client had a “bad title”. “There is no such thing as 

a perfect title. It is a matter of degree. The property lawyer’s job 

is to improve the client’s position up the property title ladder and 

the conveyancing counsel’s job should be directed at- problem 

solving. The other thing I feel is that a lawyer should not beat 

about the bush in giving bad news. If the client has a bad case he 

should be told it as early as possible”. 

His advice to student lawyers would be to get in as much variety 

as possible and to newly qualifieds would be that “If you are 

going to specialise try to find time and space to gain broader 

experience in the law also”. 

I bid my adieu and immense gratitude as the Judge was off to pay 

his respects to the sad passing of his colleague Judge 

O’Donovan. 

Kevin O’Higgins 

Taken in 1968 this photo features Joe Finnegan in his solicitor days 

and on taking up the position of assistant secretary of the Law 

Society, with on the left of the photo, Thomas C. Smyth, then a 

solicitor and assistant secretary of the Law Society 1963-68, 

formerly a barrister and now judge of the High Court; Eric A. 

Plunkett, Law Society Secretary; (Courtesy : Eric A. Plunkett and 

with many thanks to Mark McDermott of the Law Society Gazette).

They don’t come much bigger than this. The most sought 

after gongs anywhere (with the possible exception of the 

Oscars). Stuart Gilhooly takes a long hard look at last 

year’s big winners and makes sure that they have got the 

credit they deserve. 

Most adventurous new 

solicitor’s firm name 

Strictly speaking it didn’t start until 2007, but John Hogan and 

Larry Fenelon dreamt up this piece of genius in 2006 so it 

counts. Leman solicitors are the newest kids on the block. No, 

we don’t what planet it comes from either. Apparently, it’s 

related to a certain rally and rumours that they are setting up a 

branch office called Paris Dakar are unfounded. 

Best moustache in a supporting 

role 

The most famous moustache in the 

solicitor’s profession has been 

around for a while and still looks a 

million dollars. But never has Ken 

Murphy’s upper lip come under 

more scrutiny than when it 

quivered under the pressure of 

Oonagh Smyth’s tough 

questioning on Prime Time 

Investigates in May. It stood up to 

the pressure pretty well and word 

has that 2007 could see Ken’s tache write its memoirs. 

Best blue rinse perm 

As usual, it’s a two man contest. 

In fairness, David Bergin has had 

this category all to himself for too 

long. In John Glynn though, he 

now has a genuine challenger. It 

was a close run thing but since 

John makes that extra bit of 

effort, he nicks it for this year. 

Best creative use 

of hair in a supporting role 

The DSBA’s biggest Fine Gael 

supporter, ubiquitous secretary 

and general bon vivant, Kevin 

O’Higgins always likes to look his 

best. In fairness to him, Bobby 

Charlton is a good role model for 

anyone and those who say 

comb-overs look ridiculous 

haven’t seen Kevin’s in full 

flow. Well done, Kevin, for not 

letting impending baldness get to 

you. 

Most unashamed media whore 

He’ll show up anywhere. A 

sniff of a radio show, 

newspaper article, Gazette or 

Parchment article and Stuart 

Gilhooligan will pop out of the 

woodwork and polish his 

vowels. 2006 once more saw 

him bore the poor listeners of 

the Last Word to tears with 

more tales of PIAB. Here’s 

hoping more for more in 2007. 

Yawn. 

Most luminous lipstick award 

We think that Orla Coyne must be making her own lipstick 

because you can’t buy this stuff in the shops. The 

photographers don’t need a flash most of the time when she 

wears her special home-made concoction. It certainly gets her 

noticed and don’t get us wrong, we’re not saying it’s not nice, 

it’s just that it glows in the dark. Market it, Orla, before 

someone else does. 

Best Christmas email award 

(courtesy of Bill Holohan) 

‘Twas the Night Before Christmas 

(Legally Speaking) 

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, (hereinafter 

defined as “the Evening of the 24 th December”), there did occur 

at a certain improved piece of real property (herein after 

referred to as “the House”), a general lack of stirring by all 

creatures therein and thereon, including, without prejudice to 

the generality of the foregoing, a mouse. 

A variety of foot apparel, e.g., a stocking, socks, etc., had been 

fixed by and around the Chimney in the said House in the hope 

and or belief that St. Nic, a.k.a. St. Nicolas, a.k.a. Santa Claus, 

(hereinafter referred to as “Claus”), would arrive at sometime 

thereafter. 

The infant residents, (as defined by the Age of Majority Act), 

i.e., the children resident in the House, were located in their 

individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, 

i.e. dreams, wherein visions of confectionary treats, including, 

without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing, but not 

limited to, candles, nuts and/or sugar plumbs, they did dance, 

cavort or otherwise appear in the said dreams. 

Whereupon the Party of the First Part, (sometimes hereinafter 

referred to as “I”), being the joint owner in fee simple of the 

House with the Party of the Second Part, (hereinafter referred to 

as “Mama”), and said Mama had retired for a sustained period 

of sleep. (At such time, the Party of the First Part and the Party 

of the Second Part were clad in various items of head gear, e.g. 

kerchief and cap). 

Suddenly and without prior announcement, forewarning or 

notice, there did appear upon the unimproved real property 

adjacent to and appurtenant to the House, i.e., the piece of 

ground commonly referred to as “the Lawn”, a certain disruption 

of unknown nature, cause and or circumstance, hereinafter 

referred to as “the Disturbance”. The Party of the First Party then 

immediately rushed to a window in the House to investigate the 

cause of the said Disturbance. 

At that time, the Party of the First Part did observe, with some 

degree of wonder and or disbelief, a miniature sleigh, 

(hereinafter referred to as “the Vehicle”, said vehicle not being 

mechanically propelled vehicle within the meaning of the Road 

Traffic Acts), being pulled and or drawn very rapidly through 

the air by approximately eight (8) deer who on inspection 

appeared to be reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be 

and in fact was, the previously referred Claus. 

The said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and 

guidance to the approximately eight in number reindeer (8) and 

specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name:- 

Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and 

Blitzen, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Reindeer”). 

(Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an 

additional co-conspirator named “Rudolf” may have been 

involved). 

The Party of the First Part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the 

Reindeer intentionally and wilfully trespass upon the roofs of 

several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the 

House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with 

packages, toys, and or other items of unknown origin or nature. 

Suddenly, and without prior invitation or permission, either 

express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus 

entered said House via the Chimney. 

The said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially 

covered with residue from the Chimney, and he carried a large 

sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys 

and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be 

tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances 

and health regulations, and / or statutory requirements. 

Claus did not speak but immediately began to fill the stocking of 

the infant children, which hung adjacent to the Chimney, with 

toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however 

constitute “gifts” to the said minors pursuant to the applicable 

provisions of the Capital Gains Tax Acts). 

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose 

and flew, rose, and or ascended up the Chimney of the House to 

the roof where the Vehicle and the Reindeer waited and or 

served as “look outs”. Claus immediately departed for an 

unknown destination. However, prior to the departure of the 

Vehicle, the Reindeer and Claus from the said House, the Party 

of the First Part did hear Claus state and or exclaim: 

“Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!”,…………or 

words to similar effect. 

DISCLAIMER: Any resemblance 

to ‘Twas the Night Before 

Christmas by Clement Clarke 

Moore is entirely co-incidental and 

unintended, and no action at law 

shall lie from the publication 

hereof, or the dissemination 

thereof. 

BEST LAWYER STORY OF THE 

DECADE AND PROBABLY THE 

CENTURY!! 

(courtesy of a modest past President) 

From Charlotte, North Carolina. USA. 

A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, 

then insured them against, among other things, fire. 

Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these 

great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium 

payment on the policy the lawyer filed a claim against the 

insurance company. 

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost “in a series of 

small fires.” 

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious 

reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal 

fashion. 

The lawyer sued . . . and WON! 

(Stay with me.) 

Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance 

company that the claim was frivolous. 

The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from 

the company, which it had warranted that the cigars were 

insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against 

fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire" 

and was obligated to pay the claim! 

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the 

insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the 

lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the “fires”. 

NOW, FOR THE BEST PART . . . 

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had 

him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! 

With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous 

case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of 

intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 

24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine. 

This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent 

Criminal Lawyers Award Contest! 

ONLY IN AMERICA !

COUNCIL PROFILES by Aaron McKenna 

David Bergin 

President 

Taking over the reins 

from Brian Gallagher, 

David will lead the 

DSBA into the New Year 

with drive and energy, 

that is so long as 

Council meetings don’t 

clash with any rugby 

matches! We suspect 

the lure of the world cup 

in France in September 

may happily coincide 

with the D.S.B.A.’s 

annual conference – 

Quelle surprise ! Hugely 

popular on Council and with DSBA members there’s no 

doubt that David will leave his own indelible mark on the 

DSBA in 2007. A family law practitioner of great repute 

and popularly known as ‘the housewife’s favourite’ David 

practices in O’Connor & Bergin Solicitors in the Capel 

Building. 

John P. Spanner O’Malley 

Treasurer 

The new Treasurer of the 

organisation will have the heavy 

weight of expectation on his 

shoulders as he bears 

responsibility for the DSBA’s 

financial balance sheet. With his 

broad shoulders John will no 

doubt exercise his duties with 

great prudence in the coming 

year keeping the organisation 

afloat. John’s commitment to the 

DSBA over the years and his 

brilliant organisation of our 

seminars indicate that he will be 

up to the task. John has his own 

practice in Dublin 4. 

Helene Coffey 

Seminar Chief 

Having proven herself beyond 

any doubt as a stalwart of the 

DSBA, Helene now takes on 

responsibility for seminars. With 

the DSBA’s many hard working 

committees fighting for seminar 

dates Helene will be kept on her 

toes during the coming year. 

Helene practices in the areas of 

civil litigation/family law at her 

offices with Coffey & McMahon 

Solicitors in the Capel Building in 

Dublin 7. Formerly responsible 

for the comprehensive re-drafting 

of the DSBA’s Separation 

Agreement, Helene is an authority 

on the impact of money 

laundering in family law and 

litigation. Expect to hear a lot from 

her in 2007 

John G. Glynn 

Website expert 

Still contributing much 

appreciated ideas for developing 

our website, John’s contribution 

to the DSBA is second to none. 

His enthusiasm and drive have 

ensured that the popularity of our 

website has dramatically 

increased and he also finds time 

at the DSBA’s social events to 

capture images for the website. 

John practices in Tallaght and 

while we don’t want to give away 

his age, his former apprentice is 

this year’s President of the Law 

Society and typically has only 

good words to say about his 

popular former master. 

Keith Walsh 

Editor of the Parchment 

Moving up the food chain, Keith 

has now assumed responsibility 

for the Parchment. Former 

Chairperson of the Family Law 

Committee, Keith will no doubt 

maintain and better the quality of 

the DSBA’s periodical. Keith is a 

partner in Harris Walsh Solicitors 

practicing in Crumlin. Following 

Stuart Gilhooligan is no easy task 

and there is only so much we can 

write about him here as he’ll edit 

out the interesting bits. 

John Hogan 

Younger Member joint 

Chairperson 

Another vital young member 

activist, John chairs the younger 

members committee with a great 

deal of style and commitment. 

Full of innovative and bright ideas, 

and a more recent addition to the 

council, he has slotted into 

proceedings like an old hand. 

Congratulations are in order as 

John has recently commenced 

his own practice and we wish him 

every success as partner in 

Leman solicitors. John is a 

former Mini driver and rumours of 

his racing prowess have swept 

the DSBA following his setting up 

in practice, though they are 

strongly denied by John. 

Paddy Kelly 

Consult a Colleague 

The publicity from his nickname 

of the Gas Hole solicitor being 

printed in last year’s Parchment 

has made no difference to Paddy 

Kelly and he tells the Parchment 

that he continues to advise utility 

companies, not just the gas ones. 

Paddy has revitalised the former 

solicitors helpline and together 

with this year’s President has 

been responsible for its 

rebranding and is also a member 

of the premises committee. 

Paddy is managing Partner of 

McKeever Rowan solicitors. 

Michael Quinlan 

Vice President 

Having overseen the DSBA’s 

financial health for the past few 

years, Michael now gets a 

promotion to Vice President. He 

will no doubt provide any support 

needed by our President to have a 

successful year. Aside from 

benefiting from his vast 

experience and know how, 

Michael also brings a much 

appreciated sense of humour to 

proceedings. He practices in the 

firm of Dixon Quinlan Solicitors in 

Parnell Square. 


Hon. Sec. 

Honorary Secretary again for this 

coming year Kevin has become 

the proverbial “immovable 

object”. Never a man to hide his 

true blue colours Kevin’s proven 

track record speaks for itself and 

there is no doubt that the DSBA 

will again be indebted to him for 

the time and effort he spends on 

ensuring that the DSBA’s wheels 

remain well oiled for the coming 

year. Kevin spent some time in 

South Africa last year training 

local lawyers much needed 

commercial skills and rumours 

that he would not return were 

unfounded according to Kevin, 

who now practices as a sole 

practitioner in Durban, South 

Africa (and Blackrock). 

Stuart J. Gilhooly 

PR Supremo 

Outgoing Editor of the 

Parchment, much credit must be 

given to Stuart for bringing the 

publication to its highest standard 

over the last four years. 

Outspoken, determined and a 

real champion for the cause, 

Stuart pulls no punches and as 

Public Relations Person for the 

DSBA is ready for the challenges 

that the coming year will present. 

Stuart is a partner in H. J. Ward & 

Co. Solicitors in Harold’s Cross 

and when not practising his smile 

is to be found on the radio, TV or 

whatever print media will publish 

his unique brand of pro-solicitor 

propaganda. 

Geraldine Kelly 

Conveyancing Chairperson 

Chairing one of the busiest 

committees of them all,, the 

blonde bombshell has 

responsibility for the 

Conveyancing Committee. 

Having been involved in the new 

Residential Tenancies 

Agreement, Geraldine also 

spends a lot of time fighting the 

cause for members with various 

institutions and State bodies. One 

of our most energetic council 

members Geraldine practices 

mainly in the area of 

Conveyancing on Lower 

Kimmage Road. 

Pauline O’Donovan 

Business & Commercial Law 

Chairperson 

Chairperson of the Business and 

Commercial Law Committee 

Pauline has been involved in such 

matters as the DSBA’s precedent 

Share Purchase Agreement. The 

only council member to be a 

partner in one of the big five firms 

the DSBA will again be grateful 

over the coming year for 

Pauline’s wealth of experience 

and knowledge in a very 

specialised area. 

Aine Burke 

Probate Committee 

Chairperson 

With a wealth of private practice 

experience, Aine is now the only 

council member working for the 

State. Aine’s specialist areas are 

conveyancing and probate and 

she is the Chairperson for the 

Probate and Taxation Committee 

for the coming year. Very 

approachable, Aine has also 

devoted time to the DSBA’s 

Younger Members Committee 

and was responsible for 

organising many of its activities in 

recent times. 2007 will be a year 

to remember for Aine as she 

weds her sweetheart Eamon. 

Aaron McKenna 

Litigation, P.I.A.B., 

Employment Law, Immigration, 

Human Rights and Criminal 

Law Committee Chairperson 

Not just Chairperson of the 

longest named Committee in the 

world,ever!, Aaron is a 

contributor to the Parchment and 

a member of the family law 

committee. Undoubtedly one of 

the hardest working Council 

members, Aaron is also one of 

the youngest and most 

approachable. Well settled in 

O’Mara Geraghty McCourt where 

he practices in civil litigation, 

Aaron is the Council member to 

watch this year. As a committed 

Man Utd fan he’s a bit happier this 

year than last. 

Alma Sheehan 

Younger Members Joint 

Chairperson 

A conveyancer with Sheehan & 

Co. solicitors of Clare Street, 

Alma was elected to the Council 

November 2006 following a 

number of years service on the 

Young Members Committee. This 

year she will be organising the 

Young Members Ball and a 

number of CPDs for Younger 

Members as well as settling into 

the Council of the DSBA and the 

conveyancing committee.

Investors have once again profited 

successfully from investing in Irish and 

overseas property in 2006. 

With property enjoying such a long run of 

success it is easy to feel that it is appropriate 

to have all ones investments in property. 

Diversification of investments is always the 

best way to insulate against an unexpected 

downturn in a particular asset class. 

For those investors who are substantially 

exposed to property and who are both 

prepared to accept risk and have a longer 

term perspective, the stockmarket or equities 

offer an interesting alternative. 

Stockmarkets generally produced another 

set of good returns in 2006. The table below 

sets out the returns from most of the major 

markets in 2006. 

Equity Market 

% Return 

Ireland 30.7% 

UK 12.2% 

Europe 22.5% 

US 3.6% 

Japan -8.7% 

Far East 19.5% 

Once again the Irish market led the way with a 

very strong performance followed by 

mainland Europe. These performances were 

driven by strong profit growth and reasonable 

valuations. 

At the other end of the scale the US and 

Japanese markets produced poor returns 

when translated into Euro assisted by the 

US$ and Japanese Yen weakening against 

the Euro during 2006. 

Overall as we entered 2006 we had a number 

of worries which did not come to fruition. 

Firstly we worried about inflation, in particular 

that rapidly rising energy and commodity 

prices would feed into broader inflation. 

This has not turned out to be the case as 

Reviewing the success of the Stockmarket in 2006 and the outlook for 2007 

headline inflation (which includes energy 

prices) is now either at or below core inflation 

(which excludes energy prices) in the 

Eurozone and the US. Outside of the energy 

sector there is little inflation pressure. 

This has led to a gradual improvement in the 

interest rate outlook. While at the start of the 

year we were quite uncertain where interest 

rates would peak across the world we are 

now quite confident that we have reached the 

peak in the US and would be very close to the 

peak in the Eurozone. 

The other worry we had was the growth 

outlook. At the start of the year there were 

signs that the US housing market, after many 

years of expansion, was going to contract. 

There was fear about how big an impact this 

would have on US consumption and, since 

the US consumer is such a large block of the 

world economy, how this would affect global 

economic activity and hence profit growth. 

As the year has progressed there was a 

significant contraction in housing activity, 

although house prices are still in positive 

territory year on year, and this has brought 

down the economic growth rate. At the start 

of the year the US economy was expected to 

grow by 3.8% but it now looks likely to grow 

by 3.3%. 

Therefore, the impact of the housing 

slowdown on consumption has been limited. 

In the second half of the year underlying retail 

sales in the US was still growing at 5% - 6%. 

While we have seen some job losses in the 

construction area, overall employment 

growth has improved in the second half of the 

year from 145,000 jobs created per month to 

153,000 per month. The housing market has 

not yet stabilised but given the recent 

performance of the economy the impact may 

remain muted. 

This has meant that profit growth has 

remained robust, indeed the most recent 

result season was the best we have had in the 

current recovery. In some ways it does 

appear as if this expansion is not maturing 

and there is still plenty to go for. At the start of 

the year earnings (profits) for the world equity 

index was expected to grow by 7% in 2006 

but it now looks like the out-turn will be closer 

to 15%growth, double the start of year 

expectation. 

2007 Outlook 

For 2007 we believe many of these positive 

factors will remain in place. We expect that 

inflation will continue to trend downwards or 

least not deteriorate. Thus we do believe that 

we are very close to the peak in the interest 

rate cycle. Global growth will probably be 

about the same as 2006 with the US housing 

detracting another little bit from activity in the 

US but this off-set by a modest recovery in 

European consumption where trends have 

been somewhat stronger of late. 

Employment growth across the developed 

economies has been higher in the second 

half of the year than the first, which should 

give a firm underpinning to consumption in 

2007. 

With interest rates relatively stable and 

economic growth at about the same level in 

2007, we would expect that earnings growth 

should turn out somewhat similar to 2006. 

The job growth has not come at the cost of 

rising wages so we do not see any threat to 

operating margins at the moment. Hence we 

expect that global earnings growth will be 

close to 15% in 2007 as against current 

consensus forecast of 9.7%. Thus 2007 

should deliver earnings surprises again. 

Valuation is still somewhat low for equities 

with the PE (Price Earnings ratio) firmly 

rooted in the bottom half of the valuation 

range. Investors have doubts about the 

sustainability of current growth rates, doubts 

which we believe are misplaced. If evidence 

mounts that the global economy is indeed 

resilient then one could see some re-rating of 

equity markets from current levels and the PE 

of markets move back to their average levels, 

at least. 

The valuation of equity markets is attractive 

against its history and this is supported by 

acquisition activity in 2006 hitting the highest 

level since 2001. A particular point of interest 

in this activity is the high proportion of cash 

used. In Ireland we have seen two bids, one 

for Viridian and one for Aer Lingus and both of 

these were all cash bids. Companies find 

other companies attractive at current prices. 

This acquisition activity is unlikely to 

disappear and should give further 

momentum to equity markets. 

Consequently we would be optimistic about 

equity markets in 2007 and our views can be 

summarised as follows: 

1. Inflation sideways to down. 

2. Little change in interest rates. 

3. Economic growth to be roughly similar to 

2006 with no material deterioration in the US. 

4. Earnings growth comes out stronger 

than forecast, close to 15%. 

5. Valuation below average and will be 

boosted by stable economic out-turn 

combined with continued M&A activity. 

To us it is not difficult to see equities yield a 

total return close to 20% in 2007. Though, as 

in recent years, it is unlikely to be without 

some volatility which will create some 

particularly good buying opportunities from 

time to time. 

Richard Flood is a Senior Portfolio 

Manager with Goodbody Stockbrokers. 

He can be contacted on 01 6419256 or 

by email richard.m.flood@goodbody.ie 

Goodbody Stockbrokers is the stockbroking 

arm of the AIB Group, a member firm of the 

Irish Stock Exchange, a SETS participant of 

the London Stock Exchange and is regulated 

by the Financial Regulator under the Stock 

Exchange Act 1995. 

OFFICERS 

PRESIDENT 

David Bergin 

O’Connor & Bergin 

Suites 234 – 236, 

The Capel Building 

Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7. 

Tel. 8732411, Fax: 8732517 

Email: 

davidbergin@oconnorbergin.ie 

VICE-PRESIDENT 


Dixon Quinlan 

8 Parnell Square, Dublin 1 

Tel. 8743527, 

Fax: 8787626 

EMAIL: michael@dixonquinlan.ie 

SECRETARY 



15 Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock 

Co. Dublin 

Tel:2842420 

Fax: 2842421 

Email: kevinoh@indigo.ie 

TREASURER 

John P. O’Malley 

John P. O’Malley & Co. 

38 Percy Place, Dublin 4. 

Tel: 6603687 

Fax: 6680956 

Email: spanneromalley@ericom.net 

PROGRAMMES DIRECTOR 

Helene Coffey 

Coffey & McMahon 

223 The Capel Building 

Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7. 

Tel: 01 6727633 

Fax: 01 6727639 

Email: 

helene_coffey@cmsolicitors.ie 

DUBLIN SOLICITORS BAR ASSOCIATION COUNCIL & COMMITTEES 

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 

David Bergin 


Suites 234 – 236, The Capel 

Building 

Mary’s Abbey, Dublin 7 

Tel: 8782411, Fax: 8732517 

Email: 



Dixon Quinlan 


Tel: 8743527 

Email: michael@dixonquinlan.ie 



15 Carysfort Avenue 

Blackrock, Co. Dublin. 

Tel: 2842420, Fax: 2842421 




38 Percy Place, Dublin 4. 

Tel: 6603687, Fax: 6680956 


Helene Coffey 




Tel:01 6727633, Fax: 01 6727639 

Email: 


CONSULT A COLLEAGUE 

Paddy Kelly 

McKeever Rowan 

5 Harbormaster Place 

I F S C, Dublin 1. 

Tel: 01 6702990, Fax: 01 6702988 

Email: pkelly@mckr.ie 


HJ Ward & Company 

Greenmount House 

Harold’s Cross Road, Dublin 6W 

Tel: 01 4532133 

Fax: 01 4533461 

Email: stuart.gilhooly@hjward.ie 


Geraldine Kelly & Co 

195 Lower Kimmage Road 

Dublin 6W 

Tel: 01 4921223, Fax: 01 4921821 

Email: 

gerkellysolicitors@eircom.net 

DSBA ANNUAL CONFERENCE 

David Bergin 


Ocean House 

26-27 Arran Quay, Dublin 7 

Tel: 8782411, Fax: 8732517 

Email: 



Dixon Quinlan 


Tel: 8743527, Fax: 8787626 

Email: michael@dixonquinlan.ie 

David Martin 

Gore & Grimes 

Cavendish House 

Smithfield, Dublin 7. 

Tel: 8729299, Fax: 8729877 

Email: david.martin@goregrimes.ie 

AWARD SCHEME 

COORDINATOR 




Blackrock, Co. Dublin 

Tel: 2842420, Fax: 2842421 


MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE, 

THE MANAGEMENT 

COMMITTEE 

as above 

With the help of: 

Alma Sheehan 

Sheehan & Co 

1 Clare Street, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6616067, Fax: 6610013 

Email:sheehana@sheehanandco.ie 

WEBSITE, TECHNOLOGY & 

CPD ON-LINE 

CHAIR 

John Glynn 

John Glynn & Co 

Law Chambers 

The Village Square, 

Tallaght, Dublin 24 

Tel: 4515099, Fax: 4515120 

Email: john@solicitor.net 

COMMITTEE 

Helene Coffey 




Tel: 01 6727633, Fax: 01 6727639 

Email 


Sean O’Brien 

O Brien Ronayne 

The Stone House 

Old Blessington Road 


Tel: 4621112 

Email: sobrien@solicitor.net 


Matheson Ormsby Prentice 

30 Herbert Street, Dublin 2 

Tel: 01 6199000, Fax: 01 6199010 

Email: pauline.odonovan@mop.ie 

Orla Coyne 

2 Malthouse Square 

Smithfield, Bow Street, Dublin 7 

Tel: 01 8735155, Fax: 01 8725664 

Email: o.coyne@eames.ie 

PUBLIC RELATIONS / 

PARCHMENT COMMITTEE 

PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER 





Tel: 01 4532133, Fax: 01 4533461 

Email:stuart.gilhooly@hjward.ie 

PARCHMENT 

Keith Walsh 

Harris Walsh Solicitors 

8 St Agnes Road 

Crumlin Village, Dublin 12 

Tel: 01 4554723, Fax: 01 4554596 

Email: keith@harriswalsh.ie 

COMMITTEE 





Tel: 01 4532133, Fax: 01 4533461 


Aaron McKenna 

O’Mara Geraghty McCourt 

51 Northumberland Road 

Dublin 4 

Tel: 01 6606377, Fax: 01 6606911 

Email: 

a.mckenna@omgm.securemail.ie

DUBLIN SOLICITORS BAR ASSOCIATION COUNCIL & COMMITTEES 

EDUCATION & SEMINARS 

COMITTEE 

PROGRAMMES DIRECTOR 

Helene Coffey 




Tel: 01 6727633, Fax: 01 6727639 

Email: 


COMMITTEE 




Harold’s Cross Rd, Dublin 6W 

Tel: 01 4532133, Fax: 01 4533461 

Email:stuart.gilhooly@hjward.ie 

Maura Smith 

DSBA 

26 Lower Hatch Street 

Dublin 2 

Tel: 6610067, Fax: 6610041 

Email: maura@dsba.ie 

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 

SEMINARS 

Brian Gallagher 

Gallagher Shatter 

4 Upper Ely Place, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6610317, Fax: 6611685 

Email: bg@gallaghershatter.ie 

Anne Neary 

Anne Neary Consultants 

173 Rathgar Road, Dublin 6 

Tel: 4911866 

Email: anne@anneneary.ie 

PREMISES 





Tel: 01 4532133, Fax: 01 4533461 


Paddy Kelly 


5 Harbormaster Place 

I F S C, Dublin 1 

Tel: 01 6702990, Fax: 01 6702988 

Email:pkelly@mckr.ie 

SOCIAL FUNCTIONS 

CO-ORDINATOR 

Orla Coyne 

Eames & Company 


Smithfield, Bow Street, Dublin 7 

Tel: 01 8735155, Fax: 01 8725664 

Email: o.coyne@eames.ie 

COMMITTEE 


Geraldine Kelly & Co 


Dublin 6W 

Tel: 01 4921223, Fax: 01 4921821 

Email:gerkellysolicitors@eircom.ne 

t 

NOMINEES TO LAW SOCIETY 

COUNCIL 

John P O’Malley 


38 Percy Place, Dublin 4 

Tel: 6603687, Fax: 6680956 


Helene Coffey 




Tel: 01 6727633, Fax: 01 6727639 

Email: 


John Glynn 

John Glynn & Co 

Law Chambers 

The Village Square 


Tel: 4515099, Fax: 4515120 

Email: john@solicitor.net 

BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL 

LAW COMMITTEE 

CHAIR 




Tel: 6199000, Fax: 6199010 

Email: pauline.odonovan@mop.ie 

COMMITTEE 

John Hogan 

Leman 

10 Herbert Lane, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6393000, Fax: 6393001 

Email: 

jhogan@lemansolicitors.com 

Patrick Rowan 


5 Harbourmaster Place 

IFSC, Dublin 1 

Tel: 6702990, Fax: 6702988 

Email: 

prowan@law.mckeever-rowan.ie 

Brendan Heneghan 

William Fry 

Fitzwilton House 

Wilton Place, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6395000/6395143 (Secretary) 

Fax: 6385333/6625026 (direct) 

Email: 

brendan.heneghan@williamfry.ie 

David Phelan 

Hayes Solicitors 

Lavery House 

Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6624747, Fax: 6612163 

Email: dphelan@hayes-solicitors.ie 

Neil Keenan 

Lavery Kirby Gilmartin 

The Forum 

29-31 Glasthule Road 

Glasthule, Co. Dublin 

Tel: 2311430, Fax: 2311417 

Email: neilk@laverykirby.ie 


John P. O’Malley & Co 

38 Percy Place, Dublin 4 

Tel: 6603687, Fax: 6680956 

Email: spanneromalley@eircom.net 

Lorcan Tiernan 

Dillon Eustace 

Grand Canal House, 

1 Upper Grand Canal Street, 

Dublin 4 

Tel: 6670022, Fax: 6670042 

Email: 

lorcan.tiernan@dilloneustace.ie 

Deirdre-Ann Barr 



Tel: 6199000, Fax: 6199010 

Email: deirdreann.barr@mop.ie 

CONVEYANCING COMMITTEE 

CHAIR 


Geraldine Kelly & Company 


Dublin 6W 

Tel: 4921223, Fax: 49021821 

Email: 

gerkellysolicitors@eircom.net 

COMMITTEE 

Alma Sheehan 

Sheehan & Co 


Tel: 6616067, Fax: 6610013 

Email: sheehana@sheehanandco.ie 

Ray Quinn 

Raymond Quinn 

Merchants Hall 

25/26 Merchants Quay 

Dublin 8 

Tel: 6705726, Fax: 6705727 

Email: ray@rqsolicitor.ie 

Mark Ronayne 

O’Brien Ronayane 

Tramway Cottage 

19 Rathfarnham Road 

Terenure, Dublin 6W 

Tel: 4909894, Fax: 4900093 

Email: mark@ronayne.iol.ie 

Christine Scott 

82 Silchester Park 

Glenageary, Co Dublin 

Tel: 2895678, Fax: 2846953 

Email: iangscott@hotmail.com 

Martina Firbank 

Arthur Cox Solicitors 

The Earlsfort Centre 


Tel: 01 6180000, Fax: 01 6180618 

Email: 

martina.firbank@arthurcox.com 

Garbhan O’Nuallain 

G. O’Nuallain & Co 

7 Argyle Square 

Morehampton Road, Dublin 4 

Tel: 6630814, Fax: 6630815 

Email: gonuallain@eircom.net 

Liz Roche 

Mason Hayes & Curran 

6 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6145000, Fax: 6145001 

Email: eroche@mch.ie 

Natasha McKenna 

BCM Hanby Wallace 

88 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2 

Tel: 01 4186900, Fax: 01 418 6803 

Email: nmckenna@bcmhw.com 

Jackie Buckley 

Hayes Solicitors 

Lavery House 


Tel: 6624747, Fax: 6612163 

Email: jbuckley@hayes-solicitors.ie 

Mairead Cashman 

Dublin City Council 

Law Department 

Civic Offices 

Wood Quay, Dublin 8 

Tel: 6723212, Fax: 6707687 

Email: 

mairead.cashman@dublincityp.ie 

Christine McGowan 

Reddy Charlton McKnight 

12 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6619500, Fax: 6789192 

Email: cmcg@rcmck.ie 

Justin McKenna 

Partners At Law 

8 Adelaide Street 

Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin 

Tel: 2800340, Fax: 2803101 

Email: jmk@pals.ie 

FAMILY LAW & MINORS 

COMMITTEE 

CHAIR 

Hilary Coveney 



Tel: 6199000, Fax: 6199010 

Email: hilary.coveney@mop.ie 

COMMITTEE 

Helene Coffey 




Tel: 01 6727633, Fax: 01 6727639 

Mobile: 087 688406 

Email: 


Hugh Cunniam 

Legal Aid Board 

Law Centre 

Tower Centre 

Clondalkin Village, Dublin 22 

Tel: 4576011, Fax: 4576007 

Mary Hayes 

Gore & Grimes 

Cavendish House 

Smithfield, Dublin 7 

Tel: 8729299, Fax: 8729877 

Email: mary.hayes@goregrimes.ie 

Sinead Kearney 



Tel: 4186900, Fax: 4186901 

Email: 

skearney@bcmhanbywallace.com 

Jennifer O’ Brien 

Arthur O’ Hagen Solicitors, 

Charlemont Exchange 

Charlemont Street, Dublin 2 

Tel: 4758701, Fax: 4781583 

Email: jobrien@aohagen.ie 

Keith Walsh 

Harris Walsh solicitors, 

8 St. Agnes Road, 

Crumlin Village, Dublin 12. 

Tel: 4554723, Fax: 4554596 

Email: keith@harriswalsh.ie 

Aaron McKenna 


51 Northumberland Road, Dublin 4 

Tel: 01 6606377, Fax: 01 6606911 

Email: 

a.mckenna@omgm.securemail.ie 

Cliona Costelloe 

O’Connor & Bergin Solicitors 

Suites 234 – 236, The Capel 

Building 


Tel: 8732411, Fax: 8732517 

Email 

clionacostelloe@oconnorbergin.ie 

Audrey Byrne 

McCann FitzGerald 

2 Harbourmaster Place, 

IFSC, Dublin 1. 

Tel: 8290000, Fax: 8290010 

Email 

audrey.byrne@mccannfitzgerald.ie 

Kathy Irwin 

Irwin Solicitors 

Northumberland Chambers, 

1 Northumberland Road, 

Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin. 

Tel: 2140454, Fax: 2148967 

Email irwinsol@securemail.ie 

LITIGATION , P.I.A.B., 

EMPLOYMENT LAW, 

IMMIGRATION, HUNAM 

RIGHTS, AND CRIMINAL LAW 

COMMITTEE 

CHAIR 

Aaron McKenna 


51 Northumberland Road, Dublin 4 

Tel: 01 6606377, Fax: 01 6606911 

Email: 

a.mckenna@omgm.securemail.ie 

COMMITTEE 


H.J. Ward & Company 



Tel: 4532133, Fax: 4533461 

Email: Stuart.gilhooly@hjward.ie 

Barra O Cochloain 

John Glynn & Company 

Law Chambers 

The Village Square, Tallaght 

Dublin 24 

Tel: 4515099, Fax: 4515120 

Email: barra@solicitor.net 

Hugh O’Neill 

Marcus Lynch Solicitors 

12 Lr. Ormond Quay, Dublin 1 

Tel: 01 8732134, Fax: 01 8733548 

Email:hugh.oneill@lynchlaw.ie 

Michelle Ni Longain 



Tel: 4186900, Fax: 4186901 

Email: 

mnilongain@bcmhanbywallace.com 

Deirdre McDermott 

Denis I Finn 

5 Lr Hatch Street, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6760844, Fax: 6764684 

Email: dmcd@denisifinn.ie 

Richard Breen 

William Fry 



Tel: 6395000, Fax: 6395333 

Email: richard.breen@williamfry.ie 

Fiona Duffy 

Patrick F O Reilly & Co 

9/10 Sth. Great Georges Street 

Dublin 2 

Tel: 6793565, Fax: 6793421 

Email: fiona.duffy@pforeilly.ie 

Claire O Regan 

Macguill & Co. 

34 Charles Street West, 

Dublin 7 

Tel: 8787022, Fax: 8787011 

PROBATE & TAXATION 

COMMITTEE 

CHAIR 

Aine Burke 

Chief State Solicitors Office 

Osmond House 

Little Ship Street, Dublin 8 

Tel: 01 4176100, Fax: 01 4176299 

Email: aine_burke@csso.gov.ie 

Finola O’Hanlon 

O’Hanlon Tax 

O’Hanlon Tax Limited, 6 City Gate, 

Lower Bridge Street, Dublin 8. 

Tel: 01 604 0280,Fax: 01 604 0281 

Email: finola@ohanlontax.ie 

Justin McKenna 

Partners At Law 

8 Adelaide Street 

Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin 

Tel: 2800340, Fax: 2803101 

Email: jmk@pals.ie 




Blackrock, Co. Dublin 

Tel: 2842420, Fax: 2842421 


Cedric Christie 

Christie & Co 

Pepper Canister House 

Mount Street Crescent, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6627185, Fax: 6627187 

Email: cchristie@indigo.ie 

Sonya Manzor 

William Fry 



Tel: 01 6395213, Fax: 01 6395333 

Email:sonya.manzor@williamfry.ie 

Anne Stephenson 

Fallon & Stephenson 


Blackrock, Co Dublin 

Tel: 01 2756759, Fax: 01 2109845 

Email: 

fallonstephenson@eircom.net 

Richard Grogan 

PC Moore & Co 

17 Sth. Great Georges St., Dublin 2 

Tel: 01 6777333, Fax: 01 677050 

Email:richard.grogan@pcmoore.ie 

Roisin Byrne 

Eames & Co 


Smithfield Village 

Bow Street, Dublin 7 

Tel: 8725155, Fax: 8725664 

Email: r.byrne@eames.ie 

Richard Hammond 

Reddy Charlton McKnight 


Tel: 01-6619500, Fax: 01-6789192 

Email:rhammond@rcmck.com

YOUNG MEMBERS COMMITTEE 

JOINT CHAIR 

Alma Sheehan 

Sheehan & Co 


Tel: 01 6616067, Fax: 01 6610013 

Email: sheehana@sheehanandco.ie 

JOINT CHAIR 

John Hogan 

Leman Solicitors 

10 Herbert Lane, Dublin 2 

Tel: 6393000, Fax: 6393001 

Email: info@leman.com 

COMMITTEE 

Claire Morrissey 

A & L Goodbody 

I F S C 

North Wall Quay, Dublin 1 

Tel: 6492000, Fax: 6492649 

Email: cmorrissey@algoodbody.ie 

Pauric Heraghty 

Beauchamps 

Dollard House 

Wellington Quay, Dublin 2 

Tel: 4180600, Fax: 6773783 

Email: p.heraghty@beauchamps.ie 

Tony O’Sullivan 

William Fry 



Tel: 6395000, Fax: 6395333 

Email: tony.osullivan@williamfry.ie 

Darragh Lenehan 

Johnsons 


Tel. 6393784, Fax: 6787896 

Email: 

darragh.lenehan@johnsonslaw.cm 

Evelyn Savage 

Frank Ward & Company 

Equity House 

Upr Ormond Quay, Dublin 7 

Tel. 8732499 

mail:evelyn@frankward.com 

Eamonn Shannon 

Patrick S Cahill 

Heritage House 

Dundrum Office Park 

Dundrum, Dublin 14 

Tel. 2980707, Fax: 2980808 

Email:legal@pscahill.com 

and the team in third place pictured with DSBA's John Hogan, SYS's 

Elizabeth Bradley and Brightwater's Mike Shoebridge. 

A very pleased hamper winner Ciaran Kelly with SYS chairperson 

Elizabeth Bradley and the DSBA Younger Members John Hogan and 

Eamonn Shannon. 

YOUNGER MEMBERS 

NEWS 

The third annual DSBA/SYS Table Quiz was 

held this year at the Alexander Hotel on the 

night of 23 November 2006. This year’s event 

(which was kindly sponsored by our good 

friends at Brightwater Recruitment) was held in 

aid of the Emer Casey Foundation. As many 

parchment readers will know, Emer was a 

young solicitor with Matheson Ormsby Prentice, 

who tragically fell victim to ovarian cancer early 

this year. In her memory a foundation is being 

established by her family, with assistance from 

her colleagues in MOP, to fund research into 

ovarian cancer. Many of us will recall the very 

eloquent piece written about Emer in the 

Gazette earlier this year and it was no surprise 

that we had a record turn-out for the quiz. In all 

we had 60 tables comprising 240 entrants. The 

quiz was very ably marshaled by Mike 

Shoebridge from Brightwater and with raffle 

prizes galore (including hampers, wine, dinner 

vouchers, facials, wine, cookery books, 

wine….!!) we managed to raise a total of 

€5,400 for the foundation. We hope this will set 

the foundation in good stead as it was its first 

major event. Pauric Madigan from MOP, who 

worked with Emer, spoke to us about the work 

the foundation will be doing and everyone 

wishes it all the best. 

With the MOP contingent accounting for 12 

tables alone, it looked like they might dominate 

the podium. For the third year running 

however, despite a great finishing charge from a 

table from PPC1, it was Cormac Little’s 

William Fry team that took home the spoils. A 

great night was had by all and the event, which 

has now established itself as an annual 

fundraiser, was a huge success. Many thanks to 

Liz Bradley and her colleagues from the SYS in 

helping to rally the troops and to all on the 

Younger Members Committee whose tireless 

efforts produced a fantastic raffle prize 

collection. Onwards and upwards to next 

year….. 

John Hogan, joint Chair of the Younger Members 

Committee. 

John Macklin of Brightwater presents Stuart Gilhooly with a well 

deserved prize for a triumph in his specialist area of expertise at the 

DSBA Young Members Quiz - the raffle 

'Winners all right', William Fry's Cormac Little and his all conquering 

team mates pictured with DSBA's John Hogan, SYS's Elizabeth Bradley 

and Brightwaters Mike Shoebridge. 

and the runners up pictured with DSBA's John Hogan, SYS's Elizabeth 

Bradley and Brightwater's Mike Shoebridge.

South Dublin Solicitors Dinner 

All the presidents men - bar one - Justin McKenna, a former 

DSBA President, who organised the South-Side Solicitors 

Dinner, to the right, next to DSBA Hon Sec Kevin 

O'Higgins, Philip Joyce President of the Law Society and 

Dominic Dowling former President of the DSBA. 

John Bourke, Patricia Kelly and Sean McDonnell. 

Enjoying themselves at the recent South Dublin Solicitors 

Dinner were Jacintha Enright solicitor, Deborah Flood 

trainee, Fiona Donaghy trainee (all with Partners at Law). 

The second annual local solicitors meeting took 

place upstairs in Rosie O’Grady’s of Harolds Cross 

on the 8th February where DSBA President David 

Bergin welcomed the gathering of over 35 solicitors 

and set out his stall for the year – short speeches and 

plenty of crack with some serious issues thrown in. 

Needless to say he went down a bomb and was busy 

fielding questions from interested members.As 

usual Geraldine Kelly organised the lot including 

food and drink for all and Stuart Gilhooly managed 

to get a few words in but thankfully there was no 

singing. The evening went on well into the night 

and among the local solicitors spotted were Orlaith 

and Michael Traynor, John Bourke, John O’Toole, 

Duncan Crozier Shaw, Denise McNulty, John 

Geary, John Nelson, John O’Toole, Anne Neary, 

Michael Coghlan, Denis Ryan, Robin Merrick, 

George Gill, Michael Hayes, Kay Coogan Daly and 

Jane Pollock as well as Kevin O’Higgins who 

popped in from around the corner. 

DUBLIN 6, 6W AND 12 

SOLICITORS MEET 

THEIR DSBA 

PRESIDENT 

The DSBA President with Orlaith and Michael Traynor. 

Orla McKeown and Jane Pollock. 

Ray Gilmore and Catherine May share a laugh at 

recent South Dublin Solicitors Dinner Dance. 

Michael Quinlan chats with Anne Kelly and Teresa Leger Keane. 

John Nelson and Friends.

The DSBA Ball lived up to its usual high standards with a sparkling night out in the Four Seasons in 

February. The mid winter blues were banished with a sell out evening which raised over €10,000.00 for 

the Harolds Cross Hospice.Tanaiste and Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, Judges of the Supreme, 

High, Circuit and District, President of the Law Society Philip Joyce and D-G Ken Murphy joined 

D.S.B.A. President David Bergin for the highlight of the solicicitors social calendar. Most of the 

solicitors bar associations were represented on the night 

with distinguished guests coming from Northern Ireland, 

Manchester, Bristol and Liverpool. Full credit must go to 

Orla Coyne for ensuring the night went smoothly and to her 

raffle ticket sellers for their hard work ensuring Kevin 

O’Higgins raffle pot was always full. 

Thanks too to all our sponsors on the 

night, to John Glynn for the photos and 

to the D.S.B.A. members who once 

again ensured it was a night to 

remember !

When a hero comes along 

It’s been a hard day. Eight clients in to see you, two closings and a court appearance. You’re exhausted and feeling 

particularly sorry for yourself. The job’s a bitch and then you die. You go home and switch on the news and there’s 

another gangland shooting. You tune out. What the hell has got to do with you? Give us some reality TV and just 

chill out. 

John Hennessy can’t do that. He doesn’t chill out and he can’t afford to tune out. Everytime there is a gangland 

shooting, he perks up his ears. Thinks it could have been him or, worse, maybe it will be next time. He does the 

closings, sees the clients, defends the accused. It’s just that when he goes home at night, reality isn’t on tv, reality is 

the constant Garda presence, the bullet proof vest and the thump of his heart when the doorbell rings. 

You all probably know the story of Baiba Saulite by now. Like most cold-blooded murders, it provoked outrage for a 

while but soon, it was Baiba who? Those of us in the legal profession won’t forget it though. She was mercilessly 

gunned down at her front door on 19 November last. John Hennessy was her solicitor. 

There can be no doubt that the biggest victims in this tragedy are Baiba herself and her two sons and our thoughts 

must always be with them. But John Hennessy is one of us. He is you or me. Except he isn’t. He is several steps 

above all of us. The reason John left the country for two weeks and still looks over his shoulder every minute of 

every day is that he did his job – very well. For that and that alone, his life has been the subject of several very 

serious death threats and his house has been fire-bombed. And if anyone doubted how serious those threats were, the 

fate of Baiba Saulite speaks volumes. 

It’s probably of little consolation to John but in this tragedy, a hero has emerged. A true, bona fide, poster boy for the 

legal profession. When the going got tough, John just kept on going. He talked the talk and walked the walk. He 

stuck out his chest and said take that and that and that. He wasn’t cowed and will not give in no matter what the 

threat. 

How many of us would actually do that? How many would look the devil in the eye and say bring it on? Answers on 

a postcard please. I only know one and that’s why John Hennessy is the solicitor of 2006. 

But that won’t mean much to him when he’s waking up in the middle of the night wondering what that noise was. It 

won’t matter a jot when his candelit dinner for two includes an audience in a Garda uniform. But it might help a little 

to know that the work he has done for that one client has shown a cynical public that the solicitor’s profession is a 

shining beacon of our democracy. That by standing up, facing his aggressor and saying you will not run roughshod 

over the rule of law, he has single-handedly restored the faith of many in our profession. That by standing by his 

client come what may, he stood up for the rights of the minority and kicked Goliath’s ass. 

Solicitor of the year? Make that solicitor of the century. He’s a shoo-in. 


DSBA Office. Phone: 6610067/6610051 Fax: 6610041, E-Mail: maura@dsba.ie 

Copyright The Dublin Solicitors Bar Association 

Editor: Keith Walsh 

Published by the Dublin Solicitors’ Bar Association. 

26 Lower Hatch Street, Dublin 2 

Design & Origination: Jackie Ball, Printing: Fine Print. 

Neither the DSBA or the contributor accept any responsibility for loss or damage suffered as a result of the material contained in The Parchment.

A TRIBUTE TO OUTGOING PAST PRESIDENT BRIAN GALLAGHER

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?