236 / 324
AUTUMN EXAMINATIONS
Examination
Date
Latest date for
giving notice.
First Law
Sept. 2nd & 3rd
August izth
Book-keeping September 3rd
August izth
Final
Sept. 2nd, 3rd & 4th August i2th
Preliminary
Sept. i6th & iyth August z6th
First and
second Irish Sept. i8th
August 2 8th
SOLICITORS' APPRENTICES' DEBATING
SOCIETY OF IRELAND.
FOR many years there have been informal inter-
Debates between the four student Law Societies
in Dublin. This year, the arrangements were
put on a more formal basis when the Benchers of
King's Inns presented a large silver Trophy for
annual competition. The inaugural Debate of the
new series was held at King's Inns on Friday, June
I4th, with the Chief Justice in the Chair. A very
distinguished attendance included members of the
judiciary, the President of the Incorporated Law
Society, Mr. Gaffney ; members of the Diplomatic
Corps, the Minister for Education, and some hundred
solicitors, barristers and students. The Assessors
were : Mr. Desmond Collins (for the Apprentices'
Society) ;
Professor Moran (for the D.U. Law
Society) ;
Mr. Edward Fahy (for the King's Inns
Society), and Professor McGilligan (for the U.C.D.
Law Society).
The Trophy was awarded to the Apprentices'
team—Mr. Desmond P. H. Windle and Mr. Peter
Smithwick.
The Auditor, Mr. Laurence F. Branigan, accepted
the Trophy on behalf of the Society.
It is noteworthy that the Chief Justice is an
ex-Auditor of the Society.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST.
Duty of solicitors in drafting will Depends on circum
stances.
The Court of Appeal (Hodson, Parker and
Ormerod,
L.JJ.) allowed this appeal by Mr. Meyrick,
retired solicitor, of Baling, from a decision of Mr.
Justice Ashworth on December 2ist, 1956 ([1957]
2 W.L.R. 458), by which, having allowed an
amendment to the original statement of claim, he
awarded damages to the plaintiff, Mrs. Sheela
Kathleen Hall, widow of Robert Constable Hall,
of Alton, Hampshire, on her claim for loss of
benefits conferred on her by her late husband's
will, on the ground that the defendant, who was
her solicitor, had been negligent in failing to advise
in November, 1949, that a marriage between her
and her late husband would have the effect, under
the Wills Act, of revoking the wills which he had
at that date been instructed to draft for each of
them. The parties were married in September,
1950, the wills being thereby revoked; and in
December, 1952, Mr. Hall died, without having
made any further will.
The plaintiff's action came before Mr. Justice
Ashworth in November, 1956, on a statement of
claim delivered in April, 1954, which alleged that
in November, 1949, the plaintiff (then Mrs. James
a widow) and Mr. Hall (then a divorced man)
had jointly retained Mr. Meyrick to advise them
in making mutual wills in contemplation of mar
riage. After two days of hearing the Judge indicated
that he was not prepared to find that there was
any joint retainer, and that the case as pleaded must
fail. Counsel for the plaintiff asked for leave to
amend to allege in the alternative that there had
been separate retainers by the plaintiff and Mr. Hall
respectively. The Judge allowed the amendment
and eventually gave judgment in favour of the
plaintiff.
Lord Justice Hodson said that the first point
taken for the solicitor had been that the Judge
was wrong to allow the amendment, since it was
unjust to the defendant to deprive him of the benefit
of the Statute of Limitations by a circuitous route.
His Lordship proposed to rest his decision on
that poirit.
Thus one of the questions raised on this appeal,
of great moment and interest to solicitors, was
whether the Judge had been right in holding that
there was any duty at all on a solicitor in the cir
cumstances to draw the attention of the client or
clients to the provisions of section 18 of the Wills
Act.
Though his Lordship did not propose to give
his concluded opinion on that point, it could not
be the duty of a solicitor in all cases to draw the
attention of persons who came to their offices to
make wills to the effect of marriage on a will. Each
case depended on its own particular facts. This
was a very unusual and special case. The parties
came into the office—a man and a woman, both
relatively elderly, each known to the solicitor to
be single, each desiring to benefit the other sub-
30