The Gazette 1955-58

52 / 324

Compulsory acquisition. Scale fee although
no negotiation.
The London County Council bought, under
a compulsory purchase order made under the
Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 and 1947,
certain freehold land registered under the Land
Registration Act, 1925, with absolute title. The
transaction having been completed, the vendors'
solicitors submitted to the vendors a lump sum
bill for the work done in connection with the
conveyance of the land to the council, charging
the scale fee appropriate to a completed transfer
on sale of registered land under the Solicitors'
Remuneration (Registered Land) Orders, 1925 to
1953. The vendors sought to recover the amount
from the council as charges and expenses which
the latter were required to bear by s. 82 of the Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Failing agreement
between the parties, the bill was taxed under s. 83
of the Act of 1845 and was allowed. On appeal
from review of taxation.
Held by Court of Appea Raymond Evershed,
M.R., Jenkins and Parker, , affirming Harman,
J.) that the bill was rig llowed against the
council because the proper remuneration of the
vendors' solicitors for the work of conveyance
and deducing title, etc., mentioned in s. 82 of
the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, was,
by virtue of art. i (D) of the Solicitors' Remunera
tion (Registered Land) Order, 1925, the scale
fee for a completed transfer on sale, which
accordingly became payable by the council under
s. 82, notwithstanding that the scale fee might
in suitable other circumstances cover not only
work mentioned in s. 82 but also certain other
work not mentioned there, e.g., work of negotiating
the contract.
Per Evershed, M.R., " The burden of the
applicants' argument which I have already anticipated
is that the liability under s. 82 of the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845, is limited, broadly
speaking, to the costs and charges incurred in
respect of the conveyance and other matters properly
ancillary thereto, matters of title and so forth—
in respect of matters, as he says, arising after the
date of any contract which the solicitor might
have been employed in drafting or perusing.
Therefore, says counsel for the applicants, it will
be seen that para. (H) of the Order ot 1925, by
making the remuneration extend to and cover,
and in effect be remuneration for, matters other
than those specified in s. 82, imposes or would
if it were applicable, impose on the acquiring
authority a liability to pay costs greater than s. 82
ordained ... I think, that the answer to the present
case depends on the simple terms of art. i (D)
of the Order, 1925. This is registered land. By
the Order of 1925 the remuneration of solicitors
in regard to conveyance of registered land is
regulated by virtue ot the order, so that under
para. (D), for every completed transfer on sale
where the land is registered with absolute or good
leasehold title, the remuneration shall be that
prescribed in the schedule thereto. In my judgment
it follows from those words that, the seller being
liable to his solicitor by virtue of the order, which
I have read, to pay a scale charge on a completed
transfer, those costs are inevitably, within the
fair meaning of s. 82, charges and expenses, incurred
on the part of the seller, of the conveyance and
assurance of the lands. I cannot for my part see
any escape from that effect of the words which
I find in this order." (Re Padwick's Estate, Poplar
—1955 2. All E.R. 638).
Duty of a Solicitor.
A solicitor was suspended by the Disciplinary
Committee of the English Law Society from
practice for two years after having been found
guilty of breaches of sections 7, 10, n of the
Solicitors' Accounts Rules, 1945, section i of
the Solicitors Act, 1941, and of conduct unbefitting
a solicitor in that he—
(a) Utilised clients' money for his own and
certain other clients' purposes ;
(b) Failed to advise a client to seek advice from
an independent solicitor in relation to a
transaction in which he was personally
interested;
(i) Failed to supervise his unadmitted managing
clerk, thereby enabling the latter to obtain
a client's signature to a will which was not
in accordance with the client's wishes.
The Committee stated that although it would
have been difficult to exercise supervision over
the managing clerk it was deplorable that an
unadmitted managing clerk should have been
able to prepare and execute a will of the contents
of which his principal was unaware. • •
The respondent had borrowed money from
a client, an elderly lady of modest means in cir
cumstances where, although the respondent himself
had stated that the loan was fully secured, there
was in fact at no time proper security and at one
time no security at all. Even had the loan been
fully secured the respondent was clearly under
a duty to advise his client to seek independent
advice. The Committee added that they had taken
into account the respondent's history of accidents