24 / 736
land, though these will undoubtedly be necessary.
Part II is a detailed discription of the Irish
economy, and, as the reviewer is no economist,
he will refrain from comment. Part II considers
harmonisation of company law and the rules on
freedom of establishment in the Community. It
seems clear that, despite some differences, it would
be possible to harmonise Irish and English com–
pany law with the company law of the six Com–
munity countries.
Part IV analyses the Community proposals for
the harmonisation of direct and indirect taxes --
and outlines the present Irish law as it affects the
investor. The Double Taxation Conventions Sys–
tem particularly the favourable one with Britain,
is fully explored. At the same time it must be
admitted that, in enacting the consolidated and
bulky Income Tax Act, 1967, the legislators have
avoided difficulties, and have not simplified a tax
legislation which is unduly and deliberately com–
plicated. There
is
little doubt but that much
greater simplification could have been achieved,
instead of copying British Finance Acts verbatim,
and applying them to conditions completely in–
applicable here.
As is evidenced by a Table of Authorities ex–
tending in double columns over thirty-five pages,
the author's industry has been well nigh insatiable
and there are very many lengthy footnotes on
practically every page, in which more interesting
points are raised. The research and learning re–
quired to achieve this cannot be overestimated,
and this volume will long remain a
sua-qua-non
to anyone who wishes to cnnsult points of consti–
tutional law, economics, company law and taxa–
tion as affecting the European Economic Com–
munity. This book has been primarily written
for the American businessman, and the author
has deliberately refrained from dealing with such
topics as agriculture, transport and state trading,
which he regards as more economic than legal,
and he has disregarded arbitration, labour law,
insurance, social security, and industrial and com–
mercial property law. All the pages in the text
have been set as double columns which makes
for more difficult reading. But the print is excel–
lent, and the errors are minimal.
All in all, Mr. Tample Lang is to be heartily
congratulated upon a vast undertaking most suc–
cessfully accomplished, which in view of the tre–
mendous research and knowledge required, would
have daunted many another.
CGD
CASES OF THE MONTH
Fiduciary Duty of Assistant Solicitor
In January 1964 the defendant was engaged by
the plaintiff solicitor as assistant solicitor. As he
had been informed by the plaintiff, one of the
defendant's principal duties was to undertake the
legal work brought in by an important client, T.
The defendant commenced his employment on
16th March 1964. At some time during August or
September 1964 the defendant and T. agreed that
the defendant would leave the plaintiff's employ
and set up in practice on his own account, where–
upon T. would transfer all his legal work from
the plaintiff to him. The plaintiff received know–
ledge of that agreement only when, on 19th Octo–
ber 1964
the defendant handed him a letter,
signed by T., setting out the effect of the agree–
ment.
Two days later the plaintiff dismissed the de–
fendant, who thereupon commenced practice on
his own account and T. transferred his legal work
to him.
In an action for damages for breach of the
implied term of the contract that the defendant
would serve the plaintiff with good faith and
fidelity,
the defendant admitted the
term but
contended that he was not in breach thereof since
the agreement between him and T. had been
initiated by T. and he had merely accepted an
offer made by T.
Held, that, even if the agreement had not been
initiated by him, the defendant, in accepting T.'s
offer during the subsistence of his agreement with
the plaintiff, and in not informing the plaintiff
of T.'s offer, was acting contrary to the interests
of the plaintiff and was accordingly in breach of
the implied term of the agreement that he would
serve the plaintiff with good faith and fidelity.
[Sanders v Parry (1967)
1 W.L.R. p. 753].
Solicitor's Lien for Costs
In November 1965 and July 1966 orders for
costs out of an estate were made in favour of the
respondent L., in a probate action in which she
was a party. A number of solicitors, privately
instructed had acted for her at various times in
the course of the action. Before the commence–
ment of party and party taxation she filed a
notice of acting in person and thereby made her–
self responsible for the carriage through party and
party taxation of her solicitors' party and party
bills of costs. She refused to give any undertaking
to lodge those bills in toto or to a partial extent.
She alleged that she had claims against the solici–
tors in respect of their neglect and brearh of
duty towards her. Four firms of solicitors who
had acted for her and who had not yet taxed
20