Previous Page  170 / 822 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 170 / 822 Next Page
Page Background

contentious matter, namely, the sale of

(Blackacre), at

less

than the scale of

charges prevailing

in

the district

in

which he practised ;

and

(b)

allowed himself to be held out as being

prepared to do professional business in

the said non-contentious matter at less

than the scale of charges prevailing in

the district in which he practised.

The respondent was a member of a local Law

Society which had passed a resolution stating that

the scale of charges prevailing in the district of

that Society for conveyances of property payable

by both vendor and purchaser, whether separately

represented or not, was the scale prescribed by the

Solicitor's Remuneration Order,

1936, without

any percentage additions allowed by subsequent

Orders.

The respondent was instructed by the purchaser

of Blackacre.

The

houseagent concerned

told

the respondent that the vendor would probably

instruct him also but asked what, in that event,

would be the cost to the vendor. The respondent

replied that his fee to the vendor would be between

£17 and £20. The vendor (unknown to the res

pondent) had already asked another firm of solicitors

what their charges would be for acting for him

on the sale and they had quoted £28 133. 4d.,

being the appropriate fee according to the resolution

of the local Law Society mentioned above. On

learning

the respondent's quotation the vendor

took the deeds away from the other solicitors,

whom he had already instructed, and instructed

the respondent in their place. Subsequently, the

vendor withdrew the respondent's retainer and

the sale was completed by the other solicitors.

The

respondent completed

the matter for

the

purchaser alone,

to whom he charged the full

scale fee approved by the local Law Society.

At

the

hearing

before

the Committee

the

respondent admitted the above facts and did not

seek to deny that he had committed an offence

under Rule 2 of the Practice Rules. He stated,

however, that at the material times he had neither,

known nor suspected that the vendor had already

instructed other solicitors and that when quoting

the reduced fee he had been under the impression

that the vendor would .instruct him in any case.

The respondent further stated that he had had it

in mind that, acting for both parties, he would

not have to do so much work for both clients as

would substantially justify him in charging two

scale fees, even at the reduced rate approved by

the local Law Society. He had, therefore, thought

it proper at the time to give in advance an estimate

less than the scale fee so approved, although this

was not his usual practice.

The Committee

accepted

the

respondent's

evidence.

The Committee found that the allegations made

against the respondent had been substantiated and

that he had been guilty of professional misconduct

in respect thereof. Having regard to the matters

stated in extenuation by the respondent, however,

the Committee did not think that the case was one

in which they ought to exercise their full disciplinary

powers and they therefore ordered that there be

imposed on the respondent a monetary penalty to

be forfeited to his Majesty and that the respondent

do pay the costs."

(Gazette of the English L,an> Society,

October, 1947.)

Stamp duty on leases reserving a fine

A QUESTION which seems to be agitating the minds

of some solicitors recently is whether or not the

new rates of stamp duty imposed by Section 13 of

the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947, apply to a lease

granted in consideration of a fine and a rent, as

well as to " conveyances or transfers on sale of

lands."

It is understood that the Revenue Com

missioners claim that Section 15

applies

to such

leases and nobody has found it worth while to

test the validity of the claim. The doubt arises from

the fact that Section 13

expressly provides that

the stamp duties chargeable on conveyances or

transfers on sale of lands, etc., under the heading

" conveyance or transfer on sale of any property "

in the First Schedule

to

the Stamp Act, 1891,

shall be at the new rate on and after ist December,

1947, but is silent as to leases. It is true that the First

Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, when it came

to fixing

the stamp duties on leases, expressly

provided that when the consideration for the lease

included a fine the fine was to be subject to the

same duty as a conveyance on sale for the same

amount.

It is also true that since the Finance

(1909-10) Act, 1910, which doubled the

ad valorem

duty on conveyances on sale, the duty on a fine

on a lease has also been doubled, but Section 76

of that Act (unlike Section 13 of the Finance (No.

2) Act, 1947),

expressly dealt with leases.

The

answer seems to turn on whether the words " The

same duty as a conveyance on a sale for the same

consideration " in the First Schedule to the Stamp

Act, 1891, as applied to leases, refer to

the duty

imposed by the Stamp Act, 1891, on conveyances,

etc., or to the duty on such conveyances for the

time being.

2p