114 / 324
because he neither knew nor was in a position to
know the misleading character of the affidavit and
therefore it would not be right to make him what
might be called for
this purpose " criminally
liable " for what was done. But the section did
not require that the solicitor himself should be
found guilty or punished before the clerk could
be dealt with by the committee.
It would be a
strange result if because the solicitor showed that
he had no knowledge of what his clerk did, the
clerk could escape the consequences of his mis
conduct. It would mean that a clerk who was able
to conceal his misconduct from his master could
escape
any
punishment
by
the Disciplinary
Committee.
As soon as it was discovered that a false affidavit
had been filed in an action or proceeding it was
clear that an application could be made against the
solicitor who was responsible as the solicitor on the
record for the filing of the affidavit. He might be
able, as in the present case, to show that the affidavit
was false.
In my opinion there was no doubt that
the Society, who had learnt of the clerk's action
in the course of the inquiry against the solicitor,
could
take
the proceedings authorised by
the
section.
(In Re a Solicitor''! Clerk,
[1956] 2.
All.
E. R.
242).
It should be noted that the Solicitors' Act, 1954
does not contain any provision similar to s.i6 of
the (English) Solicitors' Act 1941 enabling the
Law Society to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction
over solicitors' clerks.
A Solicitor held negligent in not ascertaining standard
Rent before completion of sale.
The plaintiff instructed the defendant, a solicitor,
to act for him on the plaintiff's purchase of a lease
hold dwelling-house. At the plaintiff's suggestion
the vendor instructed the defendant to act in the
matter on his, the vendor's, behalf. The premises
were registered with a good leasehold title and were
within the Rent Restrictions Acts.
The house
contained three floors, and .was to be sold with
vacant possession of the ground floor. The two
upper floors were each let at 255. per week. The
defendant noted answers to questions raised on a
printed form of " Inquiries before contract," and
in reply to a question relating to subsisting tenancies,
with particular reference to the Rent Restrictions
Acts and to the amount of the statutory and net
rents, the defendant noted, on information supplied
by the vendor, that the two upper floors were
each let at 255. weekly inclusive of rates. As regards
the top floor the defendant noted that 255. was
the rent receivable when the vendor bought the
property in 1948 and no increase in rates had been
passed on to the tenant.
It was further stated
that the vendor could give no information of
previous lettings. The contract of sale contained
a special condition referring to the fact that the
two upper floors were each let at rentals of 255.
per week inclusive. When the plaintiff attended to
sign his part of the contract, the defendant went
through the inquiries and answers and remarked
that as there had been increases in rates since 1950
it was possible that the plaintiff could increase the
rents.
In January, 1954, the sale was completed.
In May, 1954, the plaintiff proposed an increase of
rent to the tenants of the upper floors.
In reply a
reduction was demanded and in September, 1954,
the standard rents of the upper floors were fixed
by the county court at 155. each, the recoverable
rents with permitted increases being 175. 6d. per
week and i8s. 4d. per week respectively.
In con
sequence the plaintiff had to make repayments of
overpaid rents to the tenants. He claimed damages
for the defendant's negligence.
Held by Danckwerts, J. :—that the defendant
was liable for negligence because he had accepted
the information given by the vendor relating to
rents without ascertaining, either by questioning
the vendor further or by asking the tenants, what
were the standard and recoverable rents of the
property, and because he had failed to advise the
plaintiff that he could not rely on the rents which
were being paid being recoverable rents.
Per Danckwerts,
]. :—Where
inquiries before
contract have been made, it is still the duty of a
purchaser's
solicitor
to make
the appropriate
requisitions and inquiries after the formal contract
is signed, even if the preliminary inquiries have
been so complete that it is only necessary to ask
whether the answers thus received are still complete
and accurate.
(Goodyv. Baring[ic)^6]
2
AH. E.R.
n.)
OBITUARY.
MR. JOHN L. KEALY, Solicitor, died on the 3rd
May, 1956 at St. Vincent's Hospital, Dublin.
Mr. Kealy served his apprenticeship with the late
Mr. Joseph M. Reilly, Drogheda, was admitted
in Hilary Sittings 1928 and practised at Drogheda,
Co. Louth.
MR. JOHN LOMBARD, Solicitor, died on the 13th
May, 1956 at St. Lawrence's Hospital, Dublin.
Mr. Lombard served his apprentices nip with the
late Mr. William Devoy, 74 Dame Street and the
late Mr. John Hawthorn, 15 Eustace Street, was
admitted in Hilary Sittings, 1928 and practised at
Gorey, Co. Wexford.
8