517 / 736
NEGLIGENCE
£1.600
Damages
awarded
against
Solicitor
for
Negligence in not investigating title.
Plaintiff lady brings action against X and Y practising
as a firm of solicitors; X acted throughout as solicitor
for the plaintiff. Plaintiff's husband died, and as plaintiff
wanted
to earn a
livelihood,
she wished
to acquire
premises and carry on dealing in antiques. Under the
terms of the lease, the premises to be sold could only
he used for the sale of groceries, but X did not inform
the plaintiff of this. Plaintiff agreed with sitting tenant
to acquire interest in the lease for £600, and paid X
a deposit of £150, but did not read the agreement, nor
did X explain the grocery restriction. X mistated the
position to Vendor's solicitor, in stating that plaintiff
proposed carrying on
the
existing business on
the
premises; No Requisitions on Title were ever furnished
by X despite ample time. Plaintiff sent cheque of £450
for balance of purchase money
to X. Plaintiff was
allowed by X
to execute the assignment, although he
had not investigated the title, nor had he obtained the
consent of the landlord as to change of user. It was only
after the closing that X wrote to Landlord's solicitors
suggesting a change of user, which was
refused. X
should have
informed Plaintiff
that she could not
conduct any business
in
the premises other
than
a
grocery until permission had been obtained, but he did
not do so. X never succeeded in getting the Assignment
executed neither b" the Landlord nor by the Assignor.
Held—the firm of X and Y was negligent, and apart
from the £600 which the plaintiff paid to them for
the purchase of the premises, they were also liable for
various sums totalling £1.091, including £666 in respect
of vouchers and
receipts properly
incurred by
the
plaintiff.
Plaintiff must however give credit for remaining in
the premises for 17 months. Amount will be determined
later.
(A.B. v. X and Y—unreported—Murnaghan
].—
17th
October 1968).
TAXATION OF COSTS — Principles Applicable
Review of Taxation from Master O'Reilly. The action
was brought by
the plaintiff against Defendants for
fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation in
the sale of
a property
in Co. Wexford. The defendants denied
this or that the plaintiffs had suffered anv damage;
however they counterclaimed for damage to a fishery
on the lands. Original action heard in High Court before
Davitt P. for 10 davs. The President gave judgment for
the plaintiffs for £11 700 with costs — and for the
Defendants
for
£210 with
costs. The Defendants
appealed, and the Supreme Court substituted the sum
of £5.000 damages to the plaintiff for £11,700. The
plaintiff's bill of costs, and defendant's bill of costs
were dulv taxed in Februar" 1966. and the defendants
obiected to the disallowance b" the Taxing Master of
129.
items in their Bills of costs. It was held :—
1. The the Taxing Master was wrong in disallowing
fees to attend Counsel to have documents settled.
2. That it was for the Taxing Master to apportion
the costs as between the claim and the counter-
-i-im when thev overlapped.
3. The Taxing Master's finding that "Bv far tho
greater portion of the work done by the solicitors
was in connection with the defence of the claim
was correct.
4-
In view of the work actually done in this case by
the solicitors for the defendants, the instructions
fee of £63 was generous.
5.
The Taxing Master did not err when he stated
that as between party and party, he could not
allow a second senior counsel on the counterclaim.
6.
As this case was taken, before the Superior Court
Rules 1962 came into force Order 99, Rule 38
(3), which expressly provided for objection being
taken as to amount, does not apply. Accordingly
this case must be dealt with under the 1905 Rules.
Consequently the Judge declines to intefere with
discretion of the Taxing Master in fixing amounts.
Geoffrey William Fenton
and Knockrabo School
Limited
v.
Stanley Scholfield Ruth Scholfield
and
Sc'-olf-H Scott Ltd.
(No.
2 N
— Murnaghan J. —
unreported — 24th May 1967).
ALLEGED RIOTOUS BEHAVIOUR IN THE
BOGSIDE
Miss Bernadette Devlin, M.P., was summoned despite
the presence of hundreds of rioters apparently on a
selective basis bv District Inspector Armstrong in the
Bogside
in Derry on
13th August,
1969. She was
ultimately convicted by Resident Magistrate Shearer on
four counts and was sentenced to the maximum term
of six months
imprisonment without the option of a
possible maximum fine of £100 on 22nd December, 1969.
On the application of her Counsel, Sir Dingle Foot, the
Resident Magistrate stated
a case
to
the Northern
Ireland Court of Appeal, but all the arguments of the
appellant, Miss
Devlin,
were
dismissed
by
that
Court
(Lord
MacDermott C.C.J.,
Curran
and
McVeigh L.J.J.) on 22nd June 1970. Furthermore, on
26th June, 1970, on apparent grounds of bias,
the
Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the House
of Lords
to determine questions of Law which had
never been considered bv it before. The Judgment of
the Court was delivered by Lord MarDermott, and can
be criticised bv its omissions rather than its arguments.
As
these omissions had been made subject of official
reports, such as
the Cameron Report and the Bailey
Report into the conduct of
the police
in respect of
incidents
in
the Derry Bogside
in August 1969,
in
which no less than 12 policemen were suspended from
dutv for deliberately attacking people and damaging
property, this judgment can only be approached with
cynical scepticism. The principle in De Smith. Judicial
Review of Administrative Action, 2nd edition, at p.
237, is stated thus :— "The common law disqualifies a
judge frorn adjudicating wheneever circumstances noint
to a real
likelihood
that he will have an operative
compelling bias in relation to a party or an issue before
them " Manv of us may not agree with the extreme
socialist principles which Miss Devlin as an M.P. has
forrpfullv advocated from time to time, nevertheless we
wrmlH
trv to be fair to her in anv adjudication. The
Court of Armeal appears
to have signallv failed
to
Ho so.
The principal defence
that Miss Devlin
in
the
63