Previous Page  43 / 228 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 43 / 228 Next Page
Page Background

the Urban District Council prepared

the draft

leases, had them settled by Counsel and approved

by the Urban Council, the Department and the

intended lessees.

The terms of the various leases

were identical and the engrossments were printed

and executed by the tenants in duplicate. At this

stage, before the leases had been sealed on behalf

of the Urban District Council the County Manager

wished to insert a new term as to non-alienation

in each lease. The tenants refused to agree and the

leases were never completed by the Urban District

Council. The tenants are still in possession. The

solicitor in each case acted for lessor and lessee.

The Urban District Council have undertaken to

pay the solicitor his proper costs.

Both parties

sought the opinion of the Council as to the scale

on which costs should be drawn.

In the opinion

of the Committee which was approved by

the

Council, the transaction was not completed within

the meaning of the General Order dated i6th April,

1884, and the costs should be drawn under Schedule

2,

PROFESSIONAL TOPICS

Remuneration of Solicitor to Public Assistance

Board

AN order was made by Mr. Justice Overend in

the High Court, Dublin, that a solicitor was entitled

to be paid by a Board of Public Assistance on a

taxed costs basis, for all work done by him for the

Board since the date of his appointment.

The plaintiff claimed declarations that he had

been employed by the Board as their solicitor on a

taxed costs basis and that he was entitled to be paid

costs on that basis since October ist, 1942.

In his statement of claim he stated that on

February 28th, 1938, he was appointed permanent

solicitor to the Board on a taxed costs basis, subject

to the Minister's sanction, the Board's total liability

for such legal work not to exceed £250 per annum.

The Minister's sanction, dated March I5th, 1938,

read :

" If the proposal is to employ Mr.

(the plaintiff) as solicitor to the Board on a taxed-

costs basis the Minister sees no objection thereto."

He claimed that by virtue of the Minister's sanction

and its adoption by the Board, he was duly appointed

as solicitor to the Board on a taxed costs basis and

that the addition to the Board's resolution pur–

porting to limit their liability to £250 was ineffective

and void.

The plaintiff further stated that his bill of costs

in respect of professional work done for the Board

from January ist to December 3ist, 1943 amounted

to

£jdj,

but the Board had refused to serve a

requisition to tax, save with a provision providing

that they would not undertake to pay more than

The Board pleaded in their defence that the

Minister approved of the appointment in the terms

of the Board's resolution and that from 1938 to

1943 they paid the plaintiff £250 per annum, which

he accepted in full remuneration of his services to

them.

Mr. Justice Overend, delivering judgment, said

that the only thing the Minister sanctioned was the

plaintiff's appointment on a taxed costs basis without

any over-riding maximum.

The fact that the

plaintiff had acted as solicitor ever

since

seemed

to him to indicate that the Board accepted the

Minister's qualification of what

they had done

and that the plaintiff's appointment was on a taxed

costs basis only.

If his view was wrong in that, if, in fact, the

Board and the Minister were disagreeing, then it

seemed that the Board were in a dilemma, that

there was no valid appointment but that the position

was that they had retained the plaintiff as solicitor

to do the legal work of the Board as it arose.

In

that event, the plaintiff was also entitled to his taxed

costs.

He would make a declaration that the

plaintiff was entitled to be paid on a taxed costs

basis since his appointment and direct the Board to

pay the costs of the action.

It is understood that notice of appeal has been

served on behalf of the defendants.

Requisition for Taxation of Costs :

In

re

James C. Kirke, a Bankrupt (1946

I.R.

60)

THE High Court decided a point on the effect of a

signature by a client of a requisition to tax costs

containing an undertaking

to pay

the amount

found due thereon by the Taxing Master.

The

applicant James C. Kirke had been adjudicated a

bankrupt in proceedings

instituted by way of

debtor's summons against him by a solicitor for

taxed and certified costs amounting to £56

c^s.

gd

He applied to the Court under Section 129 of the

Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857, to show

cause against

the adjudication,

contending that

the debt due in respect of the costs incurred did not

amount to

£io,

and alleged that the petitioning

creditor had not been retained by him in connection

with the subject matter of the bill of costs and that

no costs were in fact incurred by him.

It appeared

that after he had been furnished with the bill of

costs the applicant had gone to another solicitor

with the requisition to tax and signed it on his advice.

The requisition was in the usual form and con–

tained an undertaking " to pay any balance which

the Taxing Master may certify to be due by me on