Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Companies Bill, 1962 debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1963

SECTION 173.

Question proposed: " That Section 173 stand part of the Bill."

Is there any point in keeping the provision about not requiring the solicitor to disclose the name and address of the client ? His address might be of some importance.

I concede that in certain cases some importance might attach to the address of the client. Seriously, is it proper that a solicitor should be asked to disclose the address of his client ? Is it proper without the client's consent to disclose that it was Mr. Snooks of Ballyjamesduff ? I think it is undesirable, without the client's consent, to disclose that information.

I can, for instance, see where a man might wish to have his address kept to himself for one set of reasons because in another action, unrelated to this, he might have to appear to defend himself. The solicitor should not be compelled to disclose his location.

Why is " address " put in ?

I suppose it is in order to facilitate the inspector to locate a certain person if he feels his contribution would be important.

That is why we are opposed to it. It goes too far to defeat the solicitor-client relationship.

In any court you are entitled to ask what his name and address is.

When you have him in court.

Or to ask a solicitor: " Did John Murphy consult you ? "

I think all the interrogator can ask is : " Did John Murphy of Ballyjamesduff consult you ? " But under this the inspector could ask me : " Did John Murphy consult you ? " and when I reply " Yes ", he can ask. " Where is John Murphy now? " I should not be obliged to answer that.

That is the net point.

What is the reason for it ?

I think it is to identify him.

It is mainly for identification purposes. It is so worded in the Six Counties Act and in the British law.

Is it not possible that what was intended was simply that where a solicitor appeared before an inspector, he would have to disclose in what capacity he was there and obviously he would have to disclose the person by whom he was instructed?

Is this not all prior to the investigation ?

It could happen at any time.

During the course of the investigation. Section 168 (1) requires all officers and agents of the company to produce to the inspector all books or documents and to give to the inspector all assistance in connection with the investigation. Subsection (4) enables him to have other persons examined. By subsection (6), the word " agents " includes solicitors, so the purpose of Section 173 is to have a saver in relation to the ordinary privileged communication between solicitor and client, and banker and customer. But I am inclined to agree that, in certain circumstances, it may be going too far to expect a solicitor to disclose a client's address.

Surely, for example, an inspector going to examine a firm's affairs could not just descend on Deputy Sweetman and say : " Please give me the name and address of your client?" He cannot do that unless Deputy Sweetman is before the inquiry.

He cannot examine Deputy Sweetman about his other clients ; it is only insofar as Deputy Sweetman or some other solicitor is appearing before the inspector on behalf of someone.

I think not. Suppose the inspector in the course of his investigation finds that Deputy Sweetman writes a letter on behalf of John Murphy of Ballyjamesduff to the company, in relation to some matter about it. The inspector is then entitled under this section to come and say: " You acted on behalf of John Murphy ; where is he now?"

Surely as solicitor for John Murphy, he is not obliged to be cross-examined at all? It is only as solicitor for the company, as agent of the company.

That is right.

But not as a solicitor for a private individual.

Suppose a solicitor is asked for the name and address of his client and he said he is John Murphy of Bantry. Now the Minister and the inspector have the name. What is it intended to do to John Murphy?

If it appears that the evidence of John Murphy might be relevant to the business of the enquiry, then the inspector could serve whatever document was necessary on him to bring him before the investigation.

In any capacity? As long as the inspector felt he could give some evidence, he could be summoned before the inquiry, is that right?

In view of what the Minister says, I do not understand what the section means at all. If it is restricted entirely to the solicitor for the company or of an associate company, what is the point of asking for the name and address of the client, because the inspector knows it?

Presumably he does.

There must be something more in it than we have hit on.

I am afraid my notes are not very complete. We have incorporated this to be consistent with prevailing law in neighbouring countries.

Is it in any previous legislation? Is it in the 1908 Act?

No. If we leave it, I will consider it and if the word " address " is not necessary, I will delete it.

We can wait for the recommittal.

Question put and agreed to.

Before we conclude, perhaps we could have a definite pronouncement on the dates for future meetings.

The suggestion is that we meet on Tuesday 26th at 7.30 p.m. and on Tuesday April 2nd, at 7.30 p.m. Unless circumstances change in the meantime, it is proposed to meet from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesday 9th April and on Wednesday 10th April from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. These times can be changed if circumstances require it.

May I take it that in regard to the week after Easter we are unlikely to meet?

There are so many conventions and annual meetings——

It would be undesirable.

I will be going to Athlone on the Wednesday. In view of the usual practice of not having Parliamentary functions in Easter week, I think it would be undesirable to meet.

I think we should not meet.

The Committee adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26th March, 1963.

Top
Share