The Gazette 1949-1952

because o f this the rent is not a rack rent. The lessee’s

solicitor contended that the rent is a rack rent

(See

Opinion No. 77, Calendar 1951, p. 489). On a re

port from a Committee, Council decided that the

rent fixed by the Court under Part 3 o f the Landlord

and Tenant Act, 19 31,

inter partes

is not necessarily

a rack rent. A rack rent is defined as the full annual

value o f the premises or near it. (Ex parte Connolly

190°, I., I.R.6., and in re Sawyer & Wythall 1919,

2 Ch. 333.) The Council have already decided

Opinion 77) that the permitted rent under the

Increase o f Rent Acts is a rack rent within the

meaning o f S.R.G.O. 1884, Schedule 1, part 2.

The position under the Increase of Rent Acts is

distinguishable from that under the Landlord and

Tenant Act 19 31, Part 3. In the former case the

maximum rent is controlled by statute for all

landlords and tenants of the property. In the latter-

case the fair rent is fixed by the Court between

a particular landlord and a particular tenant.

Superior Court fees

A Committee was set up by the Minister for Justice

to revise the fees in the Supreme Court and High

Court and Messrs. Arthur Cox and Sean O

hUadhaigh were appointed as the Society’s

representatives. By a majority (Messrs Cox and

O hUadhaigh dissenting), the Committee prepared

a draft report the general effect o f which is that

Court fees will be doubled and in some cases,

trebled. Furthermore the fees payable in bankruptcy

matters which are assessed on the value o f the

property realised have been increased by raising

the rate. It was decided that the Society’s re

presentatives should send in a minority report

drawing attention to the fact that the rate o f

valorem

fees has been raised although the value

of property on which they are assessed has

substantially increased since 1939, suggesting that

ad valorem

fees should not be increased, and that

the maximum increase in respect o f fixed fees should

be 50 per cent, over pre-war.

Business cards

embers

enquired whether it is permissible

use a business card with the address and telephone

number o f the firm and the names o f the partners.

The Council expressed the opinion that there is

no objection to a card not designed or used as an

advertisement.

Leases from building companies—Company’s

solicitor acting for lessee

a complaint made by a client to the Society

the Council expressed the following opinion—

(a)

It is undesirable that a solicitor who has an

interest in a building company should act for

lessees from the Company; (

) The Council was

asked to say whether a solicitor who has an interest

in a building company and obtains instructions

from clients introduced by the company is guilty

o f touting or improperly soliciting business.

In the opinion o f the Council the answer to this

question depends on the circumstances.

I f the

solicitor has a small or nominal interest in the

company, the fact that he acts for lessees introduced

by the company will not raise the presumption

that he is soliciting business. If, however, the

solicitor has a large or controlling interest as owner,

shareholder, or partner, and habitually acts for

lessees from the company such action might

prima

fade

raise a presumption of touting, but this would

depend upon the facts proved if the case were

brought before the Statutory Committee.,

Registration o f English and Scottish Grants

by limited companies

embers

act for companies incorporated in the

Republic o f Ireland who have English shareholders.

In the past where the holding of a deceased English

shareholder was the sole asset in Ireland they

advised the company to register an English or

Scottish grant, accompanied by a letter from the

Revenue Commissioners stating that no duty was

payable.

Following the raising of the level of

exemption from death duties from £100 to £2,000,

they ask for the opinion o f the Council as to whether

a solicitor for a company should advise his clients

to register an English or Scottish grant where

the property does not exceed £2,000 in value,

and the Estate Duty Office certifies that no duties

are payable. The Council decided to reply that

the advice which a solicitor gives to a client must

depend upon the facts in each case and the solicitor’s

judgment on those facts. In the past it has been

customary for companies, presumably acting on

their solicitors’ advice, to accept and register

English and Scottish grants where the total value

of the property in the country was trivial and no

death duties were payable. It is not, however,

desirable, either in the interests of the public or

o f the profession, that solicitors acting for companies

should advise them to register foreign grants of

probate or administration except in cases where

the value of the assets in the Republic is trivial.

Apart from the question of death duties the law of

wills and intestate succession is not identical in

Ireland, England, and Scotland. In the opinion

o f the Council where there is any substantial property

in this country the will or intestacy should be proved-