232 / 244
from 30. The following is an analysis of the replies
to questions submitted :—
Replies
(a)
Are you in favour of the recummen-']
dation by the Council of a uniform |
scale o f costs for use by solicitors |
acting for local authorities on the
es—2
9
completion o f mortgages tosecure |
1
advances made under the Small
Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts ?
J
(
b
) Are you opposed to any reduction in \ Yes— 6
the full scale fee for such work ?
f
No —22
(c)
Should any scale recommended b e j
related to the volume of work I Yes— 2
handled by. the Solicitor in a single j N o—28
year ?
J
(d)
Are you in favour o f a uniform scale J
of i i% suggested by the Department ) A es
15
of Local Government ?
J
I4
It was decided that a letter should be written by the
Secretary to the interested solicitors, explaining
the present position and the result o f the replies to
the circular, asking them to convene a meeting in
Dublin to discuss the matter with a view to giving
the Council the necessary authority to discuss, and if
possible agree, a scale with the Department o f Local
Government.
Land Registry Costs
A draft application to the Land Registration Rules
Committee for an increase in the commission scale
fee and other amendments to the rules relating to
costs was considered and adopted. Representatives
were appointed to attend before the Committee on
the hearing of the application.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
In an action for personal injuries the defendant
delays serving his defence on the ground that the plaintiff
resident in the country has refused to submit to a medical
examination unless the defendant undertakes to pay the
expenses of his personal medical attendant of travelling to
Dublin with him. Is the plaintiff entitled tojudgment in
default of defence ?
No. In O’Keeffe
v.
Rogers, not yet reported,
after a plenary summons had been served and an
appearance entered, the solicitors for the defendant
requested that the plaintiff who resided in Ballinasloe
should attend for examination by the defendant’s
surgeon in Dublin. The defendant’s solicitors
undertook to pay the costs o f conveying the plaintiff
to Dublin and the fee o f a Dublin surgeon of the
defendant’s choice for attending the medical examina
tion. The plaintiff’s solicitor declined to comply
with this request, and stated that the plaintiff would
attend for examination only on condition that his
personal doctor accompanied him, and that the
defendant would pay the sum o f 25 guineas being
the amount o f his Doctor’ s fee. The defendant
insisted on his original proposal and declined to
deliver a defence until it was complied with. On
the hearing o f a motion for judgment in default
o f defence, it was contended for the plaintiff that
he was entitled, as a condition o f submitting himself
for medical examination, to insist on the presence
o f his personal medical attendant. It was sub
mitted by the defendant that the plaintiff could
not reasonably require more than the attendance
o f a Dublin practitioner to be chosen by himself.
Casey J. held that the defendant had acted reasonably
and stated that, although he could not compel the
plaintiff to submit himself to a medical examination,
he could protect the defendant from the plaintiff’s
unreasonable conduct. He refused the motion for
judgment, allowed the defendant 21 days to file
his defence, the costs to be part of the costs in the
cause.
(Irish Law Times and Solicitors'’ Journal,
10th
November, 1951).
Where a solicitor's name has been struck off the
roll by order of the Chief Justice on a report made by the
Statutory Committee finding him guilty of professional
misconduct, can proceedings be successfully brought after
wards against him on a petition under the Attorneys and
Solicitors (Ireland) Act,
1849,
claiming an order directing
himtofurnish a bill ofcosts andan account ofmoneys of the
petitioner in his hands and to hand over to the petitioner
documents in his possession
?
Yes. In an unreported case before Mr. Justice
Budd at the beginning o f Hilary Term he held that
the rule was, “ Once an Attorney always an
Attorney ” for the purpose o f an application under
Section 2 o f the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland)
Act, 1849. The Solicitor’s name had been struck
off the roll pursuant to an order o f the Chief J ustice
made on the n th December, 195!, and the pedtion
claiming an account and delivery o f documents
was filed on 1 5th December, 1951. It was suggested
at the hearing of the petidon that the Court had
no jurisdiction to make the order sought, in as
much as Section 2 o f the Act o f 1849 deals only
with “ an attorney or solicitor, or any executor,
administrator or assignee o f any attorney or
solicitor ” and does not deal expressly with the
case o f an ex^solicitor. The only authority bearing
on the case was Simes
v.
Gibbs (6 Dowl. 310),
decided in 1838, in which an ex-attorney named