EU DRIVING DISQUALIFICATION TAKES EFFECT IN IRELAND

From 28 January 2010 any disqualification from driving in an EU state may also create a similar disqualification in Ireland. The Act provides for the foreign state to notify the Minister who in turn applies to Court to obtain an Irish disqualification order.

By passing S.I.11 of 2010, the Minister for Justice has brought into effect Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 and introduced the EU Driving Disqualification Convention into Irish law. The Convention was agreed between member states to provide for mutual recognition of driving disqualifications across the EU for offences such as:

Reckless or dangerous driving of a motor vehicle Hit-and-run driving Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other substances affecting or diminishing the driver’s mental and physical abilities Driving a vehicle faster than the permitted speed

back to top >>

IRISH GUARANTEES ABROAD

A recent case between Pierse Contracting Limited (Pierse Ireland) and the English company Commercial Marine Piling Limited (CMP) demonstrates that a guarantee given by an Irish company to an English company for the debts of another English company can be enforced in England, even if the parties did not agree on which courts would have jurisdiction in enforcement proceedings.

Pierse Ireland gave a guarantee for the debts of its English subsidiary, Pierse UK, to CMP. The guarantee was silent as to which laws were to govern the contract or which courts were to have jurisdiction in enforcement proceedings.

When a dispute arose between Pierse UK and CMP over sums due, CMP sought to enforce Pierse Ireland’s guarantee in the English courts. Under the relevant European rules Pierse Ireland would have to be sued in Ireland unless the place of performance of the obligations under the guarantee was England. The place of performance of the guarantee (i.e. payment by Pierse Ireland) pointed to Ireland, however, in this case, the judge considered that the circumstances connected more closely with England. The judge also noted that the English courts would still have jurisdiction (in the absence of an express provision to the contrary), even if the guarantee had been governed by Irish law, on the basis that England was the place of performance of the contract.

The Law Society is considering banning solicitors from giving undertakings on commercial property deals.

Undertakings guarantee the lender good title and promise that the lender’s mortgage will take priority over other loans on the property. Solicitors are already discouraged from giving such assurances following a series of claims about multiple undertakings on the same properties.

Since last December, undertakings on commercial properties have not been covered by solicitors’ professional indemnity insurance. Therefore, solicitors wanting to continue giving such undertakings have had to take out separate policies.

Any solicitor contemplating giving an uninsured undertaking to a lender, or to any other party, is advised not to do so, as this may place their personal assets at risk.

ONE TO WATCH – COMMERCIAL LETTINGS

In March, the government published the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform (Review of Rent in Certain Cases) Bill 2010, the purpose of which is to provide for regulation concerning rent review of existing commercial leases.

The government had already dealt with rent reviews in Section 132 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, brought into effect on 28 February 2010. The 2009 Act banned future upward only rent review in leases made after that date. However, this had no effect on existing upward only rent review clauses.

The 2010 Bill will allow the government to place similar regulations on pre-28 February leases by passing temporary orders barring or limiting upward only rent review in the older leases. The order may be limited to a class or type of business premises, or to a geographical area, and may provide for any other matter that the government considers necessary to help tenants of business premises who cannot fairly be expected to pay rents at the previous, or increased, rates.