149 / 266
reproach himself for not having gone outside the
question put to him and made inquiries as to the
accident generally. The variety o f matters with
which a solicitor had to have some familiarity
increased annually. Although the case was on the
border line, he was not satisfied that the appellant
had made out a case o f negligence. In his view, the
appeal should be dismissed.
Lord Justice Denning, dissenting, said that he
was clearly o f the opinion that the solicitor ought
to have considered whether the workman had a
claim at common law. When a workman went to
a solicitor and told him that he had had an accident
and sought advice, the very first question that the
solicitor ought to put to himself was : What is
the man’s legal position ? Every solicitor ought
to know that in cases o f accident to workmen,
there was all the difference in the world as to the
amount o f the award given by the common law,
where the employer was to blame, and under work
men’s compensation, when the employer was not
to blame. He (his Lordship) did not think it right
that a solicitor should be able to escape by saying
that the client had consulted him only about work
men’s compensation and not about common law
damages. That would attribute to the workman a
legal knowledge o f the difference between the two
remedies. He would accordingly have allowed the
appeal.
Lord Justice Romer said that the problem which
the appellant had presented to the solicitor was
within a special and potentially difficult field. In his
(his Lordship’s) view it was not negligent on the
part o f the solicitor to fail to apply his mind to
another and totally different field. (Griffiths
v.
Evans,
1953, 1. W.L.R. 1425).
N.B.—Having regard to the dissenting opinion of
Denning, L .J., it might be unwise to assume that
this case establishes a universal principle. While the
judgment o f so eminent a Court deserves great
respect the facts o f each case will have to be con
sidered if the point arises for decision by the Irish
Courts.
Is an order by an arbitrator that each party shall pay his
own costs of the arbitration a proper exercise of his
discretion in the matter of costs in the absence of special
circumstances ?
No. In Smeaton Hanscomb & Co. Ltd.,
v.
Sassoon I. Setty, Son & Co. (1953, 1. W.L.R. 1481),
a dispute as to the quality and quantity of goods
sold was referred to arbitration. The plaintiff raised
the preliminary point that the defendants had served
their notice to arbitrate too late. The arbitrator
decided substantially in favour o f the sellers and
ruled:; that each party should bear its own costs
of the arbitration and the sellers should bear the
costs of the award. Devlin, J., o f the Queen’s Bench
division held that this was not a proper exercise
o f the arbitrator’s discretion under Section 18 of
the Arbitration Act 1950. An arbitrator’s discretion
as to costs must be exercised judicially. The award
as to costs showed that the arbitrator had not
directed his mind to the most important elements
which ought to affect his discretion—namely, the
result o f the case.
In Lewis
v.
Haverfordwest R.D.C. (195 3 ,1 . W.L.R.
i486) a similar point arose. The applicant claimed
compensation from the respondent council for
damages caused by the construction o f a sewer across
his land.
The arbitrator awarded £ 156 2s. 6d.
compensation and directed that the parties should
pay their own costs. The Lord Chief Justice in
giving his judgment said that it was a curious
circumstance that lay arbitrators seem to think that
parties should always pay their own costs and
referred to Donald Campbell & Co. Ltd.
v.
Poliak
(1927, A.C. 732) in which it was decided that in
the absence o f special circumstances a litigant should
receive his costs and that it was necessary to show
some ground for refusing to give him an order for
costs. The only reason given in the present case was
that the arbitrator could not find that during the long
period between the event and the date o f the arbitra
tion, any serious effort had been made to settle the
question. The Council had made no offer o f com
pensation and the reason given was insufficient.
The award was set aside in so far as it related to costs.
THE INCORPORATED LAW
SOCIETY OF NORTHERN
IRELAND.
M
r
.
Brian McK. McGuigan o f Belfast has been
elected President for the year 1953-54. Mr. Frederick
H. Mullan of Newry and Mr. Henry A. Maginess
o f Lisburn have been elected Vice-Presidents.
INTERVIEWS BETWEEN COUNSEL
AND INSURANCE COMPANIES’
REPRESENTATIVES.
T
he
Council made representations both to the Bar
Council and to the Accident Offices Association to
the effect that officials o f insurance companies should
not consult or seek advice from counsel except
through solicitors.
Cases had been brought to
the notice o f the Society in which the accepted
practice o f consulting counsel through solicitors
had not been observed. The following resolution
was passed by the General Council of the Bar of
Ireland and published in the
Irish Taw Times
and