Call McGarr Solicitors on: 01 6351580

Michael Lynn

It is reported that Mr. Michael Lynn’s insurers are proposing to void his professional indemnity insurance “ab initioâ€?.

Solicitors must maintain professional indemnity insurance, pursuant to Section 26 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. This is to provide indemnity to the solicitor for claims for compensation for loss “arising from his practice as a solicitorâ€? in respect of any description of civil liability.

Normally, the policy of insurance does not cover claims based on fraud. (Gray v Barr, Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd., third party [1971] 2 QB 554.)

The requirement to maintain professional indemnity insurance arises from the danger of making a mistake in professional practice. A solicitor (no less than any other professional) is answerable to a client who suffers loss consequent on any such mistake. Mistakes caused through negligence fall into the description of “civil liabilityâ€? but do not constitute the category.

The beneficiary of a professional indemnity policy is the insured professional. His client, on whom the loss may have fallen, has no privity with the insurer and, in Ireland, has no entitlement to seek payment directly from the insurer.

The client must make the claim against the professional person. Even in the UK where, under the provisions of the Third Party Rights against Insurers Act 1930, a client (the third party) may claim directly, in some circumstances (insolvency of the insured usually), against the insurer, it is incumbent on the client to effectively obtain a judgment against the insured before being able to proceed against the insurer. (Post Office v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Ltd. [1967] 2 QB 363).

A policy of insurance is a contract. Being an insurance contract it is “uberrimae fideiâ€? which has been defined as

All contracts of insurance are subject to ‘utmost good faith’ in that applicants for insurance are obliged to disclose any detail which may be of importance to the insurers whether or not it is requested.

The policy of insurance for Irish solicitors is an annual one. Such policies are “claims basedâ€?. This means the right to claim the indemnity depends on whether the claim made against the solicitor has been made during the period covered by the insurance. The date of the making of the “mistakeâ€? is not relevant.

A solicitor (or any professional) could possibly be aware of the making of the error which would give rise to the claim. Frequently, in such circumstances, the client might not be aware of the error and not yet have suffered the potential loss. Indeed, it may the loss which alerts the client.

If a solicitor is aware of any such potential loss, and consequent claim, it will be incumbent on the solicitor, in seeking the annual cover, to reveal that circumstance to the insurer. A failure to do so is arguably a breach of contract by the solicitor and could entitle the insurer to void the policy for the breach of contract.

Given the state of Irish law the injured client has no recourse against the decision of the insurer to take such action. The prospect of real recovery against the professional will be dependent on the solvency of the professional.

Extraordinary Rendition and Extraordinary Stupidity

Minister Seamus Brennan, on RTE, justifies the Government attitude to CIA rendition flights (kidnap flights) at Shannon by claiming that some “specially trainedâ€? Garda officers have reported to the government that there is no evidence of CIA rendition through Shannon.

These Gardai have not inspected the CIA flights. He could not or would not specify the form of their special training, but he was, with the Government, determined to rely on their assurance.

“Specially trainedâ€? has no meaning. It might mean “inadequately trainedâ€?. It might mean adequately trained for, say, the control of weeds in fields.

Peon service

When an Indian judge issued summonses directed to two Hindu gods his preferred mode of service was by peon, before he resorted to registered post.

Clearly, practitioners in Ireland should likewise check out the virtues of peon service before resorting to “snail mail”

Human Rights Commission

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

 

Between

 

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

 

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

    20th December 2007

    1. The High Court (Clarke J.) has adjourned the application of the Irish Human Rights Commission (seeking leave to be heard in the proceedings as amicus curiae) to 28th January 2008.

    2. The Defendants have indicated they intend to challenge the locus standi of the Plaintiff to bring the proceedings. (Locus standi is a concept referring to the interest of the party or the right of the party to litigate the proceedings).

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Undoubtedly the source of the legal analysis that has revealed the alleged flaws in the establishment or powers of St. James’ Hospital and Beaumont Hospital under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 was a fresh pair of eyes. And undoubtedly it was a conveyancing or commercial solicitor acting for a putative private investor for a co-located hospital who had those fresh eyes.

Counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is a complex crime. We currently have the case of the “Power of Deathâ€? exhibition in Hamburg. It features terracotta warrior figures from China. The exhibiting Musuem of Ethnology is now arranging to refund the 10,000 visitors their money; the figures are not original.
The museum claims it received express assurances of originality and certificates of authenticity, but some commentators are sceptical of the museum’s innocence. Mr. Grimm, for the organisers, denies he ever asserted the originality of the figures, but even with German art detectives launching an investigation, stressed the accuracy of the facsimiles. The Museum has responded by putting up a sign to the effect;

Some or all of the objects in the exhibition that are said to be authentic may in fact be copies.

So, fake statues may be authentic or may be copies. They may be claimed to be original or not so claimed. Despite the current absence of a defendant, art critics are positive; this is an art crime.

Elsewhere we have the case of Marcus Glindon of Enfield, England, who produced an estimated 14 million £1 counterfeit coins. The coins were not easily distinguishable from genuine coins. He took his instructions from Tom and John, who apparently paid him up to £2,000 per week for his work. He has been sentenced to five years in jail.

Marcus himself made no representations as to authenticity; yet he is a counterfeiter.

A bank may claim to be a client of a solicitor when it is not. Mr. Michael Lynn, for instance, was representing himself where his banks thought he was representing them, or so they may wind up saying.

DRI v Minister for Communications etc & Ors

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

 

Between

 

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

 

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

UPDATE (14/12/2007)

The Motion of the Irish Human Rights Commission for leave to appear as amicus curiae was adjourned to Monday 17th December 2007.

BRIBERY

It is odd that Irish politicians have resorted to the mantra “…no favours asked and no favours givenâ€?, in relation to the disclosure of payments, of one kind or another, to them. As an implied statement of law it is mistaken. A bribe is a payment for a favour, not a payment in return for a favour. Whether the favour is delivered or not is irrelevant (The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and The Prevention of Corruption Acts 1906 and 1916).

Section 2 of the Act of 1916 established the rebuttable presumption of a corrupt payment where it is made by a person holding or seeking to hold a contract with [..the relevant body] to [..a director or officer or employee of the relevant body].

In short, the intentions of the payee and the recipient are not matters requiring proof by the prosecution in a trial, nor is the fact of delivery of a “favourâ€?.

(The 1906 Act extended the offences in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 to employees in private employment. Private employers are affected only by the 1889 Act).

RENDITION AT SHANNON, AGAIN

Perhaps I was too quick to give credit to the Garda Siochana for its attitude to US (illegal) rendition flights at Shannon.

On 24th November 2007, the new Garda Commissioner urged the public to aid the Gardai in fighting crime.

Five days later, activists at Shannon notified the Gardai of the arrival there of what is allegedly one of the CIA’s busiest rendition Gulfstream private aircraft.

The response of the Garda Siochana was to order the activists to leave the airport and then to arrest them. The activists were waiting at the airport to point out the suspect aircraft. The Gardai refused to search the aircraft.

A junior Government Minister “explainedâ€? the Garda response by stating:

a) The aircarft was only landing briefly;

b) It was owned by a private Las Vegas company

That, in the real world, would suggest inculpatory evidence of a CIA rendition flight, not, as he seems to suggest, exculpatory evidence.

PLAGIARISM

It pays to be the Chinese Space Agency (or whatever it is called).

It launched a moon probe and published a photo of the moon.

Readers noticed the photo resembled one from NASA, issued in 2005. It not only resembled it; it appeared identical. That, if the photo is the NASA one, is plagiarism. Plagiarism is the passing off of the work of another as one’s own.

What will happen to the Chinese Space Agency? Nothing, probably. Firstly, it claims, the resemblance is a coincidence arising from the use of the same vantage point by the two cameras (is there a moon viewing point?); secondly, new craters in the Chinese photo indicate it is later and recent, they say.

The position of Raj Persaud, psychiatrist is not so easy. He presents BBC Radio 4’s programme “All in the Mind��?. Apparently he quoted, in writing, from the work of others without identifying the source. He is now being investigated by the Fitness to Practice committee of the UK General Medical Council. Confusingly, the GMC confirms he did not attempt to pass off the work of others as his own, simply that he did not identify them.

This is worrying. Many bloggers, it seems, are eliding the authorship of others, or otherwise exploiting their work, in linking to other sites.

Of course, we might comfort ourselves with the reflection that we don’t mind if the British GMC seeks to foil any intention we have to practice medicine in the UK, there being, generally, none.

More appropriately, we might wonder why the GMC thinks this issue has anything to do with the practice of medicine and why they might not recognise the possible existence of envy towards Dr. Persaud.

Finally, what is the proper utility of a copyright? Certainly to protect the income of the author, but for how long? A lifetime and 70 years, as at present?

According to Rufus Pollack of Cambridge University, 15 years.