202 / 266
O’Byrne, Crown Solicitor, Lusaka, Northern
Rhodesia, has been removed from the Roll at his
own request to enable him to seek call to the Bar.
DISTRICT COURT COSTS
S
ince
the passing o f the Courts o f Justice Bill,
1953, extending the jurisdiction o f the District
Court, there has been no scale of party and party
costs for District Court Civil Bills falling within
the extended jurisdiction. The Council have been
continually pressing the responsible authorities to
sanction new scales but so far this has not been
done. The Council understand that the matter
is at present the subject o f communications between
the Department of Justice and the District Court
Rules Committee. A client who instructs a solicitor
to institute proceedings in the District Court is
liable to the solicitor for the costs incurred as
between solicitor and client and the party and
party costs awarded by a District Justice under
Rules of Court are in the nature o f an indemnity
to the client against part o f his solicitor and client
costs. There is at present no indemnity owing to
the absence o f Rules o f Court prescribing new
scales o f party and party costs for the extended
jurisdiction. In these circumstances the Council
have thought it appropriate where the subject
matter o f an action falls within the extended juris
diction to advise members to consider instituting
proceedings in the Circuit Court having regard
to the fact that a successful plaintiff or defendant
as the case may be in the District Court may receive
no party and party costs, or may receive costs on
an inadequate scale. The Circuit Judge has juris
diction under Order 58, Rules 14 and 27 to award
party and party costs on the Circuit Court scale in
such cases, and, in tbe view o f the Council, the
absence o f any party and party scale in the District
Court is a special circumstance within the meaning
o f Order 58, Rule 14. It is suggested that applica
tions should be made to the Circuit Judge under
these Rules.
RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS.
Can a company registered in the Republic o f Ireland
recover possession of leaseholdpremises in "England without
having first obtained a licence in Mortmain to acquire
or hold the property
?
No, said the Court o f Appeal (Singleton, Denning
and Morris L .J.J.). Per Singleton L .J. :—“ There
was no difficulty in the way o f a company, whether
registered under the Companies Act, 1948, or
registered abroad, in holding land In the United
K in gd om , i f it follow ed the procedure laid down
in that A ct. I am not aware h ow many properties
these two companies had, or when they came to
acquire them. B u t w h y they had done so gave
rise to some interesting speculations which had
been put before the Court. One was that i f the
Company had not a place o f business in this country,
it was rather difficult to serve them w ith notices
under the H ou sing o r any other A c t s ; It m ight
also be that w ithout a registered place o f business
in this country, the collection o f rates b y the local
authority would be made more difficult in the case
o f housing property such as th is.”
Per D enning L . J . :— “ In order that land may be
caught b y Section 1 o f the Mortmain A c t,
1888,
it must be assured o r transferred o r leased to a
corporation in Mortmain, in other w o rd s, when
land was transferred to a corporation, the theory
was that it ceased to render its dues, services and
fees to its lord from that time forw ard , and, being
thus in the hands o f a dead hand, was liable to be
forfeited to the K i n g ; the A ct o f
1888
had specifi
cally included leases o f under
99
years as com ing
w ithin these terms. In this particular case, they had
a modem instance o f a real dead hand, fo r here
was a foreign corporation which pu t itself in the
position i f not to defeat entirely, at least to render
it most difficult, fo r the dues which it ough t to
render to be rendered. It made it difficult either fo r
the tenant here to recover on the covenants which
the landlord made, fo r the rating authority to obtain
rates, o r fo r the housing authority to see that the
houses w ere kept in p roper condition and possibly
even fo r the Revenue authorities to obtain taxes.
(Morelle Ltd .
v.
W aterw o rth ; Rodnal Ltd .
v.
Ludb rok
—The Times,
17 th Ju n e , 1954).
I f the plaintiff’s solicitor is ignorant of a time limit
of
6
monthsfrom the date of the grant in which application
under the Inheritance
(Family Provision) A ct,
1938,
should be made by a widow fo r further provision to be
made to her, has the Court power to extend the time
limit
?
No, said Roxburgh J., because the solicitor’s mis
take was not a circumstance affecting the administra
tion or distribution o f the Estate.
Per Roxburgh J. :—“ In my judgment, if, in the
present case, it is unfair to hold the plaintiff to the
prescribed time, it is so in consequence o f the
mistake o f her solicitors, and for no other reason.”
(Re Greaves deceased: Greaves
v.
Greaves
(1954)
I W.L.R. 760).
24