52 / 244
Assistant Solicitors—Unemployment Insu
rance and National Health contributions
T
he
Council considered a report from a Committee
in connection with a claim by the Department of
Social Welfare against a solicitor for arrears of
contributions in respect o f an assistant solicitor,
employed in his office. The solicitor appealed to
the Minister on the ground that the assistant solicitor
was employed under a contract for services, and
not under a contract o f service, and was therefore
exempt from the obligation to make contributions.
On 13 th October, 1949, the Minister decided that
the employment of the assistant solicitor was under
a contract for service and that he was an employed
person within the meaning o f the Act. The employer
instituted proceedings against the Minister for
Social Welfare by way of originating summary
summons for a declaration that the assistant solicitor
is not an employed person. The summons is
returnable for 1st November, 1950. The Council
decided to postpone further consideration of the
matter pending further information as to the position
under the recent White Paper on Social Security.
Solicitor’s Undertaking
T
he
Council considered a report from a Committee
on agreed facts. Mr. A ., Solicitor, was instructed
by Mr. B. to take up the latter’s papers from Mr. C.,
Solicitor. Mr. C. had acted for Mr. B. in connection
with the release of a mortgage. The release had been
lodged in the Land Registry, but registration had
not been completed.
Mr. A. wrote Mr. C. as follows :—
“ I understand that you recently acted for
Mr. B. in connection with having a burden
on the folio cancelled. He is about to offer
the lands for sale, and he has instructed me
to act for him. In the circumstances, I would
be obliged if you will please let me have particu
lars of any costs due to you in connection
with the work which you did, and I will arrange
for payment. You might also let me know if
the release has been registered.”
Mr. C. replied stating that the release had been
lodged in the Land Registry. A question arose
as to whether Mr. A .’s letter constituted a personal
undertaking to pay Mr. C.’s costs. The Council
express the following opinion :—
1. There was no consideration which would
support a personal undertaking by Mr. A.
2. Mr. C.’s position was not altered by Mr. A .’s
letter.
3. Mr. A .’s letter meant that on receipt of Mr.
C.’s costs he would submit them to Mr. B.
for payment, but the letter did not constitute
a personal undertaking.
F
eiiruary
2
nd
.
The President in the Chair. Also
present: Messrs. T. A. O’Reilly, Vice-President;
P. R. Boyd, Reginald J. Nolan, John J. Nash,
John R. Halpin, James J. O’Connor, Joseph Barrett,
Gerald O ’Donnell, W. S. Hayes, Daniel O’Connell,
Desmond Mayne, James R. Quirke, John Carrigan,
Sean O hUadhaigh, Patrick F. O’Reilly, Derrick
Martin, Roger Greene, D. R. Counahan, A. Cox,
William L. Duggan.
.,
The following .was among the business
transacted:—
Solicitors to Local Authorities
T
he
Council considered a letter from the
Department of Local Government referring to
the memorandum submitted by the Council on
the subject of the salary attaching to the position
o f whole-time solicitor to a Local Authority, and
•the Secretary was directed to reply. A copy o f the
correspondence is printed below at page 47.
Costs Query
C
ertain
land was vested by vesting, order in the
name o f the tenant, but he was not registered as
owner and no folio was opened in the Land Registry.
The holding was sold for £2,920 and the redemption
value o f the lands equivalent to the standard purchase
annuity was £306. The land was conveyed by an
ordinary conveyance, and not by Land Registry
transfer. By direction o f the Land Commission
the conveyance was sent to the Land Registry,
with Form No. 17, and the usual Land Registry
fees, and the scheduled number under which the
matter was being dealt with in the Land Registry,
was quoted. The Council was asked whether, in
their opinion, the costs o f the sale should be charged
under the Land Registry scale, or under the
Solicitors’ Remuneration General Order, 1884-1947,
and whether the costs should be calculated on the
purchase price, £2,920 plus £306. The Council
expressed the following opinion :—
1. Having regard to Section 17 (4) o f the Land
Act, 1927, the land became registered land
on the appointed day, although on that day
no folio had been opened in the Land Registry.
2. The costs should be charged under the Land
Registration Rules calculated upon the amount
o f the consideration plus the redemption
value o f the land purchase annuity.
46