597 / 736
charges. Requests are frequently made for the
provision of assessment of costs on work in hand.
The accountants have not expected to disburse
fees for such certificates and clients have not
regarded such certificates as worth a substantial
fee. The principle of liability on certificates in
consequence to
Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller
& Partners Ltd.
(1964) A.C. 465, is still not appre
ciated. There is now a further development pro
posed by certain leading firms of accountants,
based on their American experience (or misfor
tunes). Solictors are asked to list proceedings of
any substance, involving more than £500 or £1,000
in which the company is, or may be, involved, to
give estimates of liabilities or to check the list pro
vided by the board and to comment on the board's
estimates. Not unnaturally, the initial reaction of
the profession is hostile. The administrative work
and responsibility of yet another request is a
burden which it is unreasonable to expect solicitors
to accept on the present basis of nominal re
muneration. However, as has been pointed out by
the
Daily Telegraph,
this is a service, which the
clients may require. It can be given, provided
such certificates are to be paid for at a realistic
rate which will have to take account of special
administrative arrangements, principals' time and
the other aspects of schedule 2 charging that are
involved. On this view the charge for a certificate
of infoimation required for the purpose of annual
accounts, should be worth not less than £50 to
£100 to check and report. Where matters of im
portance have to be considered and assessed, the
charge should be many times such a figure. This
would be an annual recurring fee, and in such
case solicitors may welcome the practice. It has
the advantage, too, that solicitors would be on
the footing of annual communication with an
annual fee and close association between solicitors
and clients which accountants enjoy through the
annual auditing procedures. Far too often, the
opportunity to evolve the bases of practice are
lost or thrown away because solicitors lack the
courage to charge proper commercial fees where
there is no established scale to which they can
refer. —
(The Solicitors' Journal).
STRIKE LAWS
CASE AN
IMPORTANT
PRECEDENT
Sir John Pennycuicks' ruling in the High Court
on Tuesday that the threatened protest strike over
the Government's
Industrial Relations Bill is
prima facie
unlawful because it is not a trades
dispute is likely to become an important precedent
for lawyers.
It is believed to be
the first time since the
General Strike in 1926 that the courts have had
to consider whether inducements to go on strike
should lose the normal protection of the Trades
Dispute Act because the strike is being called for
political reasons.
Injunctions were granted on Tuesday against
leaders of a newspaper union, Division A of the
Society and Graphical Allied Trades restraining
them from any further action until Friday to get
members to take part in the strike planned for
December 8th.
The seven members of the division's executive
council technically face imprisonment for con
tempt of court if they defy the injunctions.
Although there has been a noticeable increase
in the number of injunctions issued by the courts
to restrain strike action in trade disputes in recent
years, committals for contempt are virtually un
known.
Court orders are generally respected and, if not
employers can be reluctant to have them enforced.
Lawyers point out that the S O G A T case is
still at a comparatively early stage and the judge's
order is in the nature of a holding operation until
20 other union leaders have an opportunity to
take part in proceedings.
On Friday, December 4th, Sir John Pennycuick,
the Vice-Chancellor decided to grant injunctions
ordering the union officials to withdraw the strike
call to their members working for national news
papers.
For union officials and members to benefit
from the protection from civil action afforded
by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 their strike action
must be "in contemplation or furtherance" of a
trade dispute.
This is defined as "any dispute between em
ployers and workmen or between workmen and
workmen, which is connected with the employ
ment or non-employment or the terms of employ
ment, or with the conditions of labour, of any
person".
Professor Kenneth Wedderburn, Professor of
Commercial Law at the London School of Econ
omics said he thought it was because there were
so few strikes with purely political motives, that
this issue under the Trades Dispute Act has so
rarely come before the courts.
"There have been a marked increase in the
number of injunctions issued by courts in trade
disputes, but so far as one can tell they have
139