156 / 736
becomes a differential in treatement.
One way of cushioning the effect of the increas
ed rates is for the solicitor to bear the first £250,
£500 or even £1,000 of each and every claim
himself. If he agrees to do this discounts of ten,
fifteen and twenty per cent respectively are usually
allowed. It must be remembered that these de-
ductibles are in respect of each and every loss
and not annual aggregate excesses. That is to say,
if a solicitor who has a £250 excess each and
every loss on his policy has four claims made
against him he must pay up to £250 each time.
To sum up: only reduced claims costs will halt
the premium rise, but over the last fifteen years the
profession as a whole has taken from insurers very
much more in claims than it has given in pre
miums.
(From The Law Society Gazette, England).
CASES OF THE MONTH
Quantum Meruit
In August, 1965 a Surveyor agreed with an
owner of a house to prepare, drawings to arrange
tenders,, to obtain necessary consent and to settle
the accounts for certain proposed alterations to the
house, and to supervise the work of alteration, the
cost of which he estimated at roughly £600, for a
fee of £30, which would cover possible extras but
not other work. In April and May, 1966, when
the builder had started the work, the owner order
ed some more work which brought the total cost
to £2,383. The Surveyor supervised the additional
work but did not say anything about a fee for
doing so until after the work was finished, when
he subnitted an account of £135. Being the agreed
£30 plus 100 guineas a scale fee for supervising
the additional work, the owner paid only the
agreed £30.
Held. The Surveyor was entitled to the agreed
fee of £30 only, because the fee was agreed in
relation only to work originally estimated and
possibly extras to it, no charge by way of quantum
meruit for supervising the additional work was
recoverable unless a new contract to pay a fee in
respect of that work could be implied, and no
such implication could be made if the parties had
never discharged the original contract for one
lump sum fee.
(Gilbert and Partners v. Knight [1968] 2 A.E.R.
248.)
Income Tax-Child Allowance
The tax payer's son an undergraduate worked
for 2£ months as a teacher in a French Lycee. The
son did not remit any of his earnings but spent
them all on lodgings and other incidental outgoings
and was therefore chargeable to tax on those
earnings. The tax payer claimed a full child
allowance under the Income Tax Acts. The claim
was refused on the ground that the allowance
should be restricted as the child was "entitled in
his own right to an income exceeding £115 a
year'.'
Held, that the full allowance could not be claim
ed even though the child's income had not been
remitted to the U.K. There was no reason for
restricting the word "income" to income charge
able to tax so that the father of the son with a
taxable income would have his allowance reduced,
but not of the same income was tax free.
(Mapp [Inspector of Taxes] v. Oram The Times
May 16th, 1968.)
Dismissal of Action: Want of Prosecution.
Inordinate delay in bringing proceedings to trial
may entitle a defendant to an order dismissing the
action for want of presecution the defendant need
not give the plaintiff or his solicitors any prior
warning of his intention to apply for such an order.
Case 1.
In 1959 the plaintiff's husband died
as a result of an accident at work and she instruc
ted her solicitor to issue proceedings against her
husband's employers. A writ was issued in 1960
followed shortly by a statement of claim. The
defence was delivered in 1961. Thereafter the
plaintiff's solicitors did little to proceed with the
action. In 1967 defendants' solicitors without prior
warning, obtained an order dismissing the action
for want of prosecution.
Case 2.
In 1960 Plaintiff instructed her solicit
ors to issue proceedings against her employer for
damages for injuries received as a result of an
accident at work in 1958. No defence was deliver
ed but instead the employers solicitors sought
further and better particulars of the statement of
claim. The plaintiff solicitor did nothing to pro-
.ceed with the action (In fact he and his managing
clerk were imprisoned in connection with other
matters). The plaintiff instructed other solicitors
who pressed their claim. The defendants asked for
further time to deliver their defence; then without
14