The Gazette 1976

March 1976

RECENT ENGLISH CASES

Twelve months suspension of practice is sufficient pen-

alty for solicitor who does not renew his practising

certificate.

Appeal from the disciplinary committee of the English

Law Society.

A solicitor, who had been fined by the Law Society

for conduct unbefitting a solicitor, subsequently allowed

his practising certificate to lapse. Because of his pre-

vious fine the Law Society required his application for

renewal to be accompanied by letters from two solicitors

vouching for his fitness to practise. He failed to renew

his certificate despite repeated reminders from the Law

Society and continued practising as a solicitor. In July

1975 he was found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee

of the Law Society of practising without a current

certificate and he was struck off the Solicitors' Roll. He

appealed against the penalty imposed.

Lord Widgery

CJ. said that the solicitor was embar-

rassed by the need to obtain letters from two solicitors

and had been reluctant to disclose his past. The com-

mittee thought that he had shown such a degree of

irresponsibility by his conduct that it was inappropriate

that he should practise as a solicitor. The Court rarely

interfered with the committee's discretion on matters of

penalty but there were exceptions. If a solicitor was

struck off for practising without a certificate there would

be no suitable penalty left for the more serious offences

concerning clients' money. The penalty was too severe

and would be reduced to twelve months' suspension.

Kilner Brown

and

Watkins

JJ. agreed. Appeal

allowed.

In re A Solicitor

— QBD — Lord Widgery CJ, Kilner

Brown and Watkins J J. — 4 February 1976.

Client awarded costs paid to solicitor who did not

pursue action, and compensation for distress and

continuous molestation.

In October 1972 the plaintiff, a woman, who wanted

legal advice on how best to put an end to persistent

pestering by a former man friend, went to a local solici-

tor's office with the object of having a letter written to

the man requiring repayment of a debt of £40. She

was seen by a young unqualified litigation clerk whom

she believed to be a solicitor. He suggested that she

might apply to the local County Court for an injunction

against the man and that it would cost about £25 and

take about three weeks. She did not then instruct the

clerk to do more than write the letter about the £ 4 0:

but the reply was so abusive of her and was followed by

the man's coming to her house and threatening her that

she instructed the clerk to apply for the suggested

injunction and she paid the estimated £25.

During the next eleven months the clerk initiated

proceedings in the High Court which, because of errors

and omissions, proved wholly ineffective, for the plain-

tiff continued to be molested by the man. When she

had paid £175 and was asked to pay a further £100

towards the costs totalling £446, she instructed the

firm in February 1974 to drop the case.

In March 1974 she issued a plaint in the County

Court, claiming £170 of the costs actually paid and

£150 for "damages and expenses". She prepared and

conducted her own case, being of opinion that it would

be impossible to find other local solicitors who would

put her case properly against fellow solicitors. The

substance of her complaints was that she had been led

to believe that the clerk was a solicitor; that, instead

of County Court proceedings which would have been

completed speedily at a low cost, High Court proceed-

ings had been instituted without her knowledge and

consent and had proved far more costly than she ever

contemplated; and that the solicitors had not exercised

due skill and care in the conduct of the action so that

almost a year after it was begun she had only an interim

injunction which had proved worthless as a protec-

tion against the man's molestation.

The County Court Judge found that most of her com-

plaints were well founded and amounted to absence of

reasonable care and skill and that she was entitled to

damages. He awarded her as damages the £175 she had

paid as costs, less £7 for the initial action over the £40

debt; but he said that she should not recover any

further sum in respect of damages.

On appeal by the plaintiff in person :

Held,

allowing the appeal, that the plaintiff was

entitled to a total of £293 as damages in respect of the

solicitors' breach of contract by their negligent conduct

of the litigation on her behalf; that those damages

should include (a) repayment of the costs paid which

had been thrown away in the abortive proceedings for

the injunction (per Lord Denning M.R., as money paid

on a consideration which had wholly failed), and also

(b) a sum to compensate her for the vexation, anxiety

and distress and the continued molestation, which were

the direct and foreseeable consequences of the solici-

tors' failure to obtain the relief which it was the sole

purpose of the injunction proceedings to secure; but

damages as compensation for her own work and the

strain involved in conducting an action against

solicitors.

Heywood v. Wellers (a firm)

— Court of Appeal — (Lord

Denning M.R., James and Bridge

L.JJ

.). — (1976) 2.W.L.R.

101.

CORRESPONDENCE

The High Court (Probate Office),

Four Courts, Dublin 7.

11th March 1976.

James J. Ivers, Esq.,

Di rector-( Jeneral.

Dear Sir,

The Probate Judge has given a direction in the

following terms, viz. :

"Where any application is made in the Probate

Office or any District Probate Registry for a Grant

of Administration with Will annexed or Intestate,

in which an affidavit of market value is required

in respect of a particular piece of property, such

affidavit must show, to the satisfaction of the

Probate Officer or District Probate Registrar, what

the market value of such property would be as at

the date of swearing the affidavit. This amount

must be secured by the Bond of the Administrator

and his or her sureties."

Yours sincerely,

P. Waldron (Probate Officer).