138 / 244
account o f any business as it is most important
to them to avoid, if possible, the establishment
o f a loss on the working o f the firm for the first
year. In the particular case referred to herein the
Auditors o f the firm resisted the ascertainment of
work in progress because of the difficulties involved
and put forward the argument to the Revenue
Authorities that it should be sufficient to include
the costs furnished together with the fees earned in
cases finally completed but not furnished up to the
end of the first year, and this position, it is under
stood, is usually accepted, at any rate in the case of
solicitors’ businesses, by the Revenue Authorities.
Whether there is a new business in the case o f a
solicitor who purchases the interest in a solicitor’s
business previously carried on by a deceased or
retired solicitor would be a question of fact and
would depend upon the circumstances, but in most
cases of this nature the Revenue Authorities will
agree to treat the business, especially in the case
o f a business carried on by a deceased solicitor and
purchased by a solicitor after his death, as a new
business for Income Tax purposes even if the
name o f the firm is unchanged.
EXAMINATION RESULTS
A
t
examinations held on the 2nd and 3rd days of
February, 1951, under the Legal Practitioners
(Qualification) Act, 1929, the following passed the
examinations :—
First Examination in Irish
Patrick Joseph Carolan, Fintan Clancy, Peter J.
C. Coyle, Thomas Joseph Crowley, Matthew P.
Drum, Edward Joseph Duffy, John F. Garavan,
Iseult Clare Kennedy, Richard D. Kennedy, Kenneth
Kenny, Michael Brendan Lynch,
Sean F.
MacGiollarnath, Joseph Bernard McCarthy, Kevin
P. St. G. McClenaghan, James F. J. Maguire, Albeit
Louis O ’Dea, Finian J. O’Driscoll, Patrick R.
O’Gorman, Thomas P. Owens, Noel Thomas
Smith, Hallam J. C. Studdert, James Noel Tanham.
Twenty-nine candidates entered; twenty-two
passed ; six failed ; one did not attend.
Second Examination in Irish
Donal G. Binchy, Daniel C. Brilley, James M.
Cawley, Arthur Dey, Eamonn M. Greene, Dermot
F. Jones, Myles C. Murphy, Patrick D. O’Connor,
Patrick H. O’Doherty, Patrick J. O ’Driscoll (Jnr.).
Sixteen candidates entered; ten passed: six
failed.
The remaining candidates are postponed.
FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT COSTS
A
seaman
lost his life as a result o f a collision at
sea between the
Queen Mary
and R.M.S.
Curacao
for which the
Queen Mary
was held partly to blame.
The administrator of his estate obtained judgment
for damages and costs in respect of his death in an
action brought against the defendants under the
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934.
Apart from the damages recovered in this action
the estate o f the deceased was so small that no
Grant of Administration would have been required,
and the administrator obtained the grant solely
to enable him to bring the action. As a result of
the damages recovered, the estate o f the deceased
had increased in value to such an extent that it was
necessary for the administrator to file a corrective
affidavit, and to incur additional expenses in
connection with the administration. The adminis
trator duly included these additional administration
expenses in his bill o f costs in the ac:ion. The
Registrar, while allowing the expenses incurred in
obtaining the grant, disallowed the additional
administration expenses incurred after judgment.
On appeal to the Probate Court Willner, J.,
held that, as the additional administration expenses
incidental to the increase in value o f the estate were
incurred after the plaintiff had recovered judgment,
and were in no way necessary to enable him to
conduct the litigation, they could not be allowed on
taxation under Rule 27, Order 65, of the Rules of
the Supreme Court.
The following dictum of
Malins, V. C., in Smith
v.
Buffer, L.R . 19, Eq. 473,
was approved:—“ The costs chargeable under a
taxation as between party and party are all that are
necessary to enable the adverse party to conduct the
litigation, and no more
.”—(Thomas v. Cunard-White
Star L,td.)
GARNISHEE PRACTICE NOTE
A
somewhat
unusual garnishee order was sought
in the High Court recently. A creditor obtained a
judgment against a debtor for a sum which, together
with costs, amounted to just over
£400.
The
debtor, in turn, was the successful plaintiff in an
action for damages against a third party who had
paid into court with his defence the sum o f £500.
By an order made in this action it was directed that
this sum be paid out to the solicitor for the plaintiff
(that is, the original judgment debtor). The judg
ment creditor thereupon applied for and obtained a
garnishee order nisi directed to the debtor’s solicitor
attaching so much o f the money in Court as was
necessary to satisfy his judgment. At the same time
he obtained a stop order directed to the Accountant
General in respect o f the funds in Court. The