The Gazette 1971

One hundred years

THE KING'S INNS COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

Lond Monck and Mr. Lefanu, two of the commissioners

appointed to carry out the above inquiry (the third

commissioner, Mr. George A. Hamilton, was absent

through indisposition) met at two o'clock on Friday,

at No. 3 Lower Ormond-quay, and opened the business

of the commission. Mr. Palles, Q.G., Mr. Shackleton

and Mr. G. Fitzgibbon, instructed by Mr. Goddard,

appeared for the Society of Attorneys and Solicitors of

Ireland. Mr. O'Hanlon, Secretary to the Society of

King's-Inns, appeared (in the absence of the Attorney-

General), on behalf of that body, with Mr. Crozier,

solicitor. Mr. M. J. Barry, Secretary to the Commission,

read the warrant, which authorises the commissioners :

To inquire into and report upon the total amount of

the sums received by "the Honourable Society of the

King's Inns, Dublin, upon the admission of attorneys

and solicitors, as deposits for chambers, and in what

manner the same or any part thereof has been applied

and disposed of, and whether any and what portion of

the amount remains unappropriated to the purposes

for which it was received, and whether the Incorporated

Society of Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland are in

possession of suitable buildings for the accommodation

of that branch of the profession of which they are the

governing body.

Mr. Palles, Q.C., stated on the part of the Society of

Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland that the inquiry

would be of a limited character, and after a short

adjournment the business might probably conclude with

one sitting. From 1793 to 1866—when the Society of

Attorneys and Solicitors obtained their charter—the

King's Inns Society had received from each attorney

admitted a sum of ten guineas "as deposit for chambers".

In the petition upon which the commission had issued,

it was stated that the King's Inns Society had received

£53,821 and the money that had been received in this

way had certainly never been applied to its original

purpose. But he understood that the King's Inns Society

ago

claimed as against that sum an equitable credit of

£28,436 expended on buildings in connection with the

King's Inns Society, and also a further credit of £10,874

expended on a lecture hall at King's Inns. The Society

of Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland were willing to

allow credit for any sums expended on buildings abso-

lutely given over to the Society, but they objected that

credit should be allowed for the full sum until they

were put into possession of all the buildings, and of

the ground on which they were erected if it was included

in the sum expended. He would ask to have a return

furnished by the King's Inns Society of the sums re-

ceived from December 1793 to August 1866 on the

admission of attorneys and solicitors, showing each

year's receipts—an account of the manner in which the

moneys were applied or disposed of—and an account

of the sums in Government funds, the property of the

Society each year from 1794.

Mr. O'Hanlon, on behalf of the Society of King's

Inns, said, in the absence of the Attorney-General he

could not undertake to furnish the third account asked

for. The other two accounts could be furnished, but

considerable time should be given, as they would have

to be made under his own personal superintendence

and he would be occupied during term and for some

time after it. He might assure the Commissioners that

the Society would give every facility in their power for

carrying on the inquiry.

Lord Monck said he was sure of that.

Mr. Palles said the Commissioners ought personally

to inspect the buildings at present in the possession of

the Society of the Attorneys and Solicitors, and judge

of the amount of accommodation afforded.

Lord Monck said the Commissioners would do so.

After some discussion it was arranged that the Society

of King's Inns should be asked to furnish the returns

mentioned before the 20th June next. After this was

done, the Commissioners would name a day when the

inquiry would be proceeded with.

The Irish Law Times

(27th May 1871)

Contracts of Local Authorities-

Negligence through Delay

In the case of

Stinchcombe and Cooper Ltd. v Addison,

Cooper Jessen and Co.

the plaintiffs agreed to purchase

certain land from a local authority. The land was

required for the purpose of development. The contract

signed on behalf of the purchasers was sent by their

solicitors to the local authority in July 1964. It provided

that completion should take place within fourteen days

of the date on which building should have been sub-

stantially commenced but, if not so commenced within

twelve months from the date of the contract, the ven-

dors were entitled to rescind and to revoke the building

licence. The completed copies of the contract duly

executed were exchanged in July 1964. On July 17th

the purchaser's solicitors sent a draft conveyance to the

local authority but nothing happened thereafter until

11th June 1965. During that period the plaintiffs had

made a number of enquiries by telephone as to the posi-

tion but their solicitors had omitted to inform them that

the contracts had been exchanged and accordingly the

plaintiffs did not commence building being under the

impression that they were not entitled to do so. The

purchaser's solicitors failed to inform their client that

they were in danger of losing the contract. Finally on

13th November 1967 the local authority exercised their

right to treat the contract as at an end. The contract

price of the land was £2,250 and it had appreciated in

value between 1965 and the date of rescission, 13th

November 1967. In was held by Brightman J. that it

was the solicitor's duty on receiving the contract from

the local authority either to supply a copy to the clients

or to inform them of the exchange of contracts and the

date thereof. It was also their duty to warn the plaintiffs

of what was needed in order to obtain a conveyance of

the land and that they were in danger of losing the con-

tract if they failed to commence building. Damages for

negligence were assessed at £4,250 with costs being the

difference between the contract price and the value of

the land at the date of rescission.