71 / 324
determined by the Court, which shall not exceed
75 per cent,
of the annual value of a weekly pay
ment. The Court should consider in particular the
age of the workman and his expectation of life.
For this purpose a life annuity shall be deemed to be
purchasable at a price calculated in accordance
with the Table set forth in the Second Schedule
to this Act.
If, according to paragraph 4 (i) of the Fifth
Schedule to the Act of 1934, two or more juvenile
dependants are entitled to the benefit of the children's
lump sum, the Court may by Section 9, now allocate
the said lump sum in proportion to the number of
months which must elapse between the date of the
death of the workman and the date on which such
juvenile dependants would attain the age of 16 years.
By Section 10 the supplemental allowances provided
for by Section 3 of the 1953 Act shall no longer be
payable.
DECISIONS
OF
PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST.
Leave
to
appeal against striking off roll
refused.
Mr. A. R. Blackburn former M.P., applied to the
Court of Appeal (Singleton, Jenkins and Parker,
LJJ.) for leave to appeal against a decision of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society which
had been affirmed by a Divisional Court of the
Queen's Bench Division, that he be struck off the
roll of solicitors and that the action be reheard
before the Disciplinary Committee.
On August
19th, 1955,
the Disciplinary Committee ordered
that the applicant's name be struck off the roll of
solicitors of the Supreme Court on the grounds
that having been convicted under the Prevention
of Frauds (Investments) Act, 1939, at the Central
Criminal Court on January yth, 1955, and having
been sentenced to
two years' imprisonment he
had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor
of the Supreme Court. The basis of the application
was that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal
dismissing his appeal was so wrong that two sub
sequent decisions of that Court had disregarded it
and stated that it was wrong. The Court of Appeal
in the exercise of its discretion dismissed the applica
tion on the ground that the effect of a rehearing
before
the Disciplinary Committee would be
indirectly to rehear the appeal before the Court of
Criminal Appeal. Leave to appeal to the House of
Lords was refused.
(In Re a Solicitor—No.
4.—"
The
Times," z-jf/j October,
1955.)
Lawyer in two Jurisdictions. Basis of Fees.
Is an applicant entitled to the taxation of a bill
of costs which had been delivered to him by an
English solicitor who was also a member of the
Canadian Bar, and is such a bill of costs, a Bill of an
English
solicitor within
the meaning of
the
Solicitors Acts ?
Yes, said Roxburgh, J.
In September, 1954,
the applicant's wife was
arrested in Montreal on charges resulting from her
being in possession of some counterfeit currency.
These charges were eventually dismissed, although
it was only fair to say, in view of the size of the bill,
that the proceedings in Canada were of some com
plication and that there were two
trials.
The
respondent was an English solicitor who was also
a member of the Canadian Bar.
The respondent sent to the applicant a bill of
fees for his services on the basis that he was a
Canadian barrister. It was a long bill and no doubt
a considerable body of work had been done. There
were no details of charges for anything except
disbursements, and it was not surprising that the
client wished to have the bill taxed.
It is not for
the Court to decide whether the bill was excessive ;
but taxation was a salutary practice even if nothing
was taxed off. It was even more salutary if something
was taxed off. The taxation of a bill of costs is for the
protection of the public.
The work that the respondent had done was for
the most part work which an English solicitor with
a Canadian correspondent could have done as
effectively. A small part of the work could not have
been done by an English solicitor, if he had not been
a Canadian barrister, but it could have been done
through Canadian correspondents.
A substantial
part of the work could not have been done by a
Canadian barrister if he had not also been an English
solicitor. All the work that the respondent did was
done in London, partly from his private address
and partly from his solicitor's office; he did not
put his foot one single yard outside the jurisdiction.
Totally different considerations would have arisen
if he had gone to Canada. The bill was that of an
English solicitor with the additional qualification
that he was a Canadian barrister and was therefore
an English solicitor's bill within the meaning of the
Act. It would be a strange anomaly if the respondent
could hold himself out, as he did in England, to
English people as an English solicitor and without
being subject to the statutory burden of taxation to
which all English solicitors were subject, merely
because he had the additional qualification of being
a Canadian barrister.
(In Re a Solicitor—No.
3.—
"The Times,"—i\st October,
1955.)