233 / 244
Humfrey was directed to hand over a bill of exchange
on the ground that he could not get rid o f the
summary jurisdiction o f the Court with respect to
acts done while an attorney by ceasing to be one,
Mr. Justice Budd following this decision made an
order granting the relief claimed in the petition.
{Irish Law Times and Solicitors’ Journal,
’and February,
1952).
On the bankruptcy of a solicitor who maintained a
number of banking accounts, one of which was an account
for clients' moneys in accordance with the English Solicitors
Act,
1933,
Section
1,
and the Solicitors’ Accounts ILules,
1945,
is the trustee in bankruptcy entitled to receive the
amount standing to credit of the clients’ moneys bank
account.for payment to the general creditors ?
No. In re a Solicitor (1951 M. No. 234) Roxburgh
J. held that only property o f the bankrupt vests in
the trustee. Accounts at banks for clients within the
Solicitors Act, 1933, Section 1 are not accounts for
solicitors’ moneys, nor mixed accounts o f solicitors’
and clients’ moneys. Such accounts are held by
the bankrupt solicitor on trust for another person
within the meaning o f the Bankruptcy Act, 1914,
Section 38 (1) and accordingly do not vest in the
trustee in bankruptcy.
Where a successfulplaintiff is awarded costs against the
defendant as between solicitor and client what is the test
to be applied by the Taxing Master in ascertaining the
costs which should be allowed, as distinguishedfrom those
which would be allowed on the ordinary taxation of
costs as between party and party.
The rule applicable is R.S.C. Ord. 65, r. 27 (29)*
which provides as follows :—“ On every taxation
the Taxing Master shall allow all such costs, charges
and expenses as shall appear to him to have been
necessary or proper for the attainment of justice
or defending the rights o f any party, but, save as
against the party who incurred the same, no costs
shall be allowed which appear to the Taxing Master
to have been incurred or increased through over
caution, negligence, or mistake, or by the payment
o f special fees to Counsel or special chafges or
expenses to witnesses or other persons, or other
unusual expenses.” Costs payable by one party to
another may be directed to be taxed
(a)
as between
party and party ; (
b
) as between solicitor and client;
(r) as between solicitor and own client. The latter-
order gives the successful litigant a complete
indemnity against his opponent in respect of all
costs which the successful litigant is liable to pay
to his own solicitor. Order (£) gives the successful
litigant an indemnity in respect of his solicitor and
client costs subject to the proviso in Ord. 65 r. 27
(29) as to the disallowance of costs incurred' through
over caution, negligence, mistake, etc. The state
ment in •the Taxing Master’s report in Giles
v.
Randall ( 19 15 ,1 K .B . 290) that “ a solicitor and client
taxation is substantially a party and party taxation
on a more generous basis ” if approved by the
Court, was merely an obiter dictum and is not
binding. While the indemnity against an unsuccess
ful opponent given by an order for taxation as
between solicitor and client cannot be construed
as an order for taxation as between solicitor and
own client, it nevertheless enables the Taxing
Master to increase the fees which would be allowed
as between party and party and to allow fees which
would be disallowed altogether as between party
and party, subject to the limitation o f R.S. C. Ord.
05 r. 27 (29). (Reed
v.
Gray, 1952, I All E. R. 242).
Where a country solicitor instituted proceedings in the
High Court in which he acted for himself, employing.
London Agents, was he entitled under an order against the
defendant for costs as between solicitor and client to be
allowed fees claimed for instructing the Agents and for
their attendance on the Plaintiff?
Yes. Although a solicitor cannot claim for
consulting, instructing and attending on himself
he can incur costs for such work performed by his
Agents and. such costs are allowed. (Reed
v.
Gray, Supra).
Is a married woman who does not follow a gainful
occupation entitled to more than nominal expenses as a
witness 1
Yes. Having regard to her absence from domestic
duties the witness is entitled to more than the
amount o f her disbursements and should receive
more than a nominal sum. (Reed
v.
Gray, Supra).
Where an unqualified person prepares an instrument
relating to real or personal estate, which to be effective
should be under seal but which is not, infact, sealed, is it a
defence toproceedings under Section
44
of the Stamp Act,
1891,
to say that the document is an agreement under hand
only within the meaning of sub-section
2
of the Section ?
No. The appellant, an estate agent, prepared for
reward an instrument purporting to be an agreement
under hand only for a lease of certain property for
a term of 14 years. To be effective as a lease the
document should have been under seal in accordance
with English law.
On being charged with an
offence under the English Solicitors Act, 1932,
Section 47 (1) which replaced Section 44 of the
Stamp Act, 1891, the defendant contended that no
offence had been committed as
{a)
the instrument
85
*N.B., Cf. R.S.C. (If.) 1905, D.LXV. r. 65 (28) (29).