655 / 736
regard where possible to practitioners needs to
absorb new legislation in time to advise their
clients.
Editor: (e)
Do you agree with the recent recom
mendation of The Law Society's Council that all
practising solicitors should be empowered to per
form the function of a commissioner for oaths
with the consequent abolition of that office?
Lord Chancellor:
There is much to be said
for this proposal and I will consider it in the
context of all the other recommendations made
in The Law Society's memorandum.
Solicitors' status
Editor:
8 A feeling still persists among some
solicitors that some barristers and judges want
to 'keep solicitors under', and that as any Lord
Chancellor must come from the bar he will never
be over-sympathetic
to
the
solicitors' branch.
Could you comment on this?
Lord Chancellor:
I am surprised to hear it
suggested that there is a desire in some quarters
to 'keep solicitors under' — whatever that may
mean. It may be that the recent history of the
claim for improved remuneration has had some
thing to do with this, but I am quite sure that this
feeling, if it exists, is based on a complete mis
conception. I know that my predecessor was as
anxious as I am to do everything he could to help
solicitors to deal with the problems which face
them today. The real position of solicitors has
never been as high as it is now, and in my opinion
the status, quality and prestige of the profession
are constantly rising and will continue to do so
with my full approval and encouragement.
(The Solicitor's Journal,
30th October 1970)
I
CURRENT LAW DIGEST
I
SELECTED_________|
In reading this digest regard should be had to
differences between Irish and English statute law.
COMPANY LAW
A footwear company was incorporated in 1943 with
share capital of £20,000
(shares of £1 each). In
December 1948, the nominal capital was increased to
£40,000 by creation of £20,000 cumulative Preference
Shares of £1 each—and a new rule incorporating this
amendment was made. Preference shareholders could
not attend meetings save one to wind up the company.
In February 1950
the 6% Preference Shares were
amended to 5% Non-Cumulative Preference Shares. In
July 1952, the 5% Non-Cumulative Preference Shares
became 5% Cumulative Preference Shares. In December
1967,
the capital of
the company was
increased to
£60,000 by creating 20,000 7% redeemable cumulative
preference shares of £1 each and all other preference
shares were declared non-cumulative; part of
the
balance to the credit of the profit and loss account was
capitalised, and used to pay for the 20,000 7% redeem
able shares.
In May
1970,
the holders
of
these
redeemable
preference shares passed a resolution that they had a
right to vote conferred by the holding of these shares;
this was disputed by the plaintiff.
Kenny J. held that the holders of the redeemable
preference shares had not got a right to vote at all
meetings of the Company because of their holdings in
these shares.
(2) The previous governing Director of the company
had died in 1969 and, by his will, had appointed the
plaintiff to be governing director. It was contended that
an assignment of
this position could not be made.
Kenny J. held that, to be effective, an assignment of a
directorship can only be made during the life of the
person making it, and that consequently, a power of
appointment by will of a directorship was ineffective.
The Greene Committee's
recommnedation was
that
such an assignment should be void until it had received
the sanction of a special resolution. Kenny J. held
however that such a special resolution was not necessary
in the case. Consequently the two declarations sought
by the plaintiff will be made.
[Michael Fitzpatrick v Fitzpatrick's Footwear Ltd.
and
others—unreported—Kenny
J.—18
November
1970.]
Compulsory Acquisition
The court can and will interfere with a minister's
decision confirming a compulsory purchase order which
overrules a recommendation by one of his
inspectors
if it is clear that the minister came to his conclusion on
the wrong evidence or on no evidence.
Where, therefore, an inspector for the Minister of
Housing and Local Government recommended that a
first-class property in an area scheduled for slum clear
ance
in Tower Hamlets should be excluded from a
compulsory purchase order because its acquisition was
not reasonably necessary for the satisfactory develop
ment or use of the cleared area and the Minister over
ruled
the recommendation and confirmed
the order,
the court quashed the Minister's decision because there
was no evidence entitling the Minister to decide.
[Coleen Properties Ltd. v Minister of Housing and
Local Government—Court of Anneal—
The Times—
27
January 1971.]
CONTRACT
In order to comply with the words ". .
. the port of
destination shall be declared by the last buyer to his
195