61 / 244
the plaintiff applied in the office to have judgment
entered under the provisions of Order X V , rule 3,
of the Rules o f the Circuit Court. The County-
Registrar refused to enter judgment on the ground
apparently that it was not the practice to do so
in such cases, and for the reason also that in an
action of the kind involved interlocutory judgment
only could be obtained, i.e., judgment subject to
taxation.
The plaintiff, accordingly, moved
ex
parte
for an order directing the County Registrar
to enter judgment for the amount claimed under
the order and rule referred to. Judge Connolly,
who, in his reserved judgment dealt fully with
the authorities, stated that, in his view, an action
by a solicitor against his client on foot o f a bill of
costs, properly delivered, was, in essence, no different
from any ordinary liquidated claim brought in
respect o f moneys due for services rendered and
work and labour done. The amount o f a bill o f
costs was not pecuniary damages but a measured
and ascertained sum. It thus fulfilled the definition
o f a liquidated demand and fell within the provisions
of Order X V , rule 3. The learned judge said that
he could discover no principle by which could
be supported the practice apparently prevailing
in the Circuit Court office, o f refusing to enter
judgment in an action by a solicitor for his untaxed
costs in cases o f default o f appearance. He would,
accordingly, accede to the motion and direct the
County Registrar to enter judgment for the amount
claimed without reference to taxation.
{Irish Law Times & Solicitors' Journal).
Negligence o f a solicitor
I
n
Lake
v.
Bushby & Anor. (1949, 2. A ll E .R ., 964)
the plaintiff was the purchaser o f certain property
under a contract for sale with the first named
defendant. The second defendant was the solicitor
who acted for both vendor and purchaser. The
property included a bungalow which had been
erected during requisition by the Air Ministry,
and the purchaser proposed to convert it into a
dwelling house. He wrote to the solicitor defendant
as follows :—
“ I have negotiated the purchase o f a property
a t --------- belonging to your client B. through S.,
Estate Agent, and I would greatly it appreciate
if you would act on my behalf in connection with
the conveyance and registration o f the property
and the arranging o f the mortgage loan with the
present owner B .”
The solicitors, in reply, wrote
“ We are obliged for your instructions to act
for you in the purchase o f this property, and shall
be glad to prepare the conveyance and mortgage
herein.”
A t the time o f this correspondence the solicitors
knew of the proposed conversion o f the bungalow
into a dwelling house. Without the knowledge o f
the solicitors the sale had been induced by the
fraudulent misrepresentations o f the vendor, and
the purchaser was awarded damages against the
vendor on the basis o f the difference between the
purchase price and the value o f the property as
it stood without amenities, the existence o f which
the vendor had represented. In reply to a requisition
for the official search in respect o f the property,
the solicitors received a letter from the clerk to
the local council stating that “ no plans had been
approved by the Council for the bungalow referred
to in your requisition.” The solicitors informed
the vendor who stated that he, personally, would
obtain the necessary approval “ and make it right
f o r ” the purchaser, but they did not inform the
purchaser, and he completed the purchase without
the knowledge that no plans had been approved
for the original erection o f the bungalow, and that
therefore, the local council might require it to be
pulled down. In an action for damages for negligence
against the solicitors it was held:—
1. That it was the solicitors duty to communicate
the information to the prospective purchaser,
and not merely to see that he obtained a good
title and having failed to do so, they were liable
for damages.
2. The measure o f the damages was the difference
between the value of the property as it stood
with a secure building and its value as
diminished by the possibility that the local
council might require the building to be
pulled down.
One o f the matters on which this case throws
light is the extension o f duties imposed on solicitors
in conveyancing matters by the social changes o f
the present century. At one time it was considered
that a solicitor’s only duty in a conveyancing
transaction was to ensure, if acting for a purchaser,
that his client obtained a good title to the property
in accordance with the terms o f the contract. As
recently as 1944 it was held in Yager
v.
Fishman
& Anor. that a solicitor who acted generally for a
client was not negligent in forgetting to notify
the client of the approaching expiration o f the time
for exercising an option to purchase premises.
55