56
The Gazette ol tbe Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[JANUARY, 1917
Recent Decision affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of Decisions, whether in reported or
unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are
invited from Members.)
COUNTY COURT.
(Before the Recorder of Belfast).
SHEAN AND DICKSON
v.
FOSTER.
Belfast, January 19, 1916.—
Solicitor—Bill of
Costs
—
Withdrawal—Second Bill of Costs.
In proper circumstances a bill of costs served
by a Solicitor upon his client may be with
drawn, and a bill of costs drawn according to
the scale fee substituted for it.
Remitted action tried before the Recorder
of Belfast (Judge J. Walker Craig, K.C.).
The facts were as follows :—The plaintiffs
were a firm of solicitors who had acted for
the defendant in the attempted purchase of
some property. The purchase fell through
at the last moment before completion owing
to the vendor's refusal to comply with a
requisition. The negotiations had previously
been protracted, and the work heavier than
usual. On August 30, 1913, the plaintiffs
drew a bill of costs against the defendant,
called herein " the first bill." This bill was
for £15 Os. 6d., and consisted of £9 15s. 6d.
for outlay and £5 5s. for professional charges,
and was sent to defendant on September 15, •
1913.
After
various
applications
the
plaintiffs wrote to the defendant on July 3,
1914. saying that if payment were not made
by July 9, 1914, this offer would be with
drawn and the costs furnished on the usual
scale charges, and payment of same at that
rate insisted on. No notice being taken of
this warning, the plaintiffs proceeded to draw
a regular bill of costs.
In so doing they came
to the conclusion that the vendor was liable
for £6 12s., part of the outlay charged in the
first bill. On August 18, 1914, they wrote
defendant telling her of this fact, and offering
without prejudice to take payment of the
balance due under the first bill in full settle
ment if payment were made within a week.
No reply was returned, and ultimately the
bill of costs drawn to scale to £29 15s. 5d.
was furnished on November 3, 1915. The
plaintiffs subsequently issued a writ, which
was remitted by consent.
The defendant
claimed to be entitled to treat the first bill as
alone valid and subsisting, admitted liability
thereunder, and paid into court
£8
19s.
H. M. Thompson, for the plaintiffs.—The
first bill was not a bill within the Solicitors
Act, 1843, s. 37.
All the items were not
charged in'--a taxable shape, nor did it give
sufficient materials for getting advice on
taxation :
Philby
v.
Hazle,
8 C. B. N. S. 647 ;
Wilkinson
v.
Smart,
24 W. R. 42
;
Re
Tilleard,
32 B. 476. Even assuming that it
is such a bill, the solicitors may withdraw or
amend it, for there has been no order or
request to tax the bill, and they have acted
with perfect fairness :
Re Chambers,
34 B.
177 ;
Lumsden
v.
Shipcote,
[1906] 2 K. B.
433.
P. L. McCorry, for the . defendant.—The
general rule is that a' solicitor is bound by
his first-oil! of costs, -said will not be allowed
to amend or with/ uw it ;
and there is
nothing here to prevJit the application of
that rule :
Re Thompson,
J3Q_ C. D. 441 ;
Re Heathe,
L. R. 5 Ch. Ap .
694.
The Recorder of Belfa
v ".Id that in the
circumstances of the cas
he plaintiffs were
entitled to withdraw the arst and furnish the
second bill, and gave a decree for the amount,
subject to taxation, bo'ul''r»ills to be brought
before the Taxing Master, and credit being
given for the money paid into court.
The
following order was accordingly made :—
Decree for plaintiffs imount to be ascertained
by
taxation of
the bill of costs, dated
November 3, 1915, and the-ibill or note of
costs of August 30, 1913, both to be sub
mitted to the Taxing Master ;
but the fact
of a decree having been granted implies, and
is to be taken to imply, that the plaintiffs
were not bound by the said bill or note of
August 30.
(Reported I.L.T.R., Vol. L.,
235).
ALL communications connected with THE
GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should
be addressed to the Secretary of the Society,
Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin.