43 / 228
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