37 / 266
well as to attend to the strictly legal aspects of
a transaction. I f the present application is granted,
solicitors’ fees on the sale o f property by public
auction will still be less than the fees received
by auctioneers. The increases sought in solicitors’
fees will affect only the larger sales, as the fees
on sales o f £1,000 or less will be unchanged and
the additional fees for sales up to £3,000 will be
relatively small.
It has been the experience of the profession
that the amount of work imposed on solicitors in
connection with purchases of registered land
where there is a full investigation of title to enable
equities to be discharged is very much greater
than in the case o f purchases o f “ unregistered ”
land where the title is registered in the Registry
o f Deeds. The officials o f the Land Registry, who
are responsible for safeguarding the public purse
against claims for compensation, arising from
mistakes in title or registration, are rigorous in
their requirements as to proof of title, and are
frequently unwilling to accept risks which would be
accepted by an ordinary purchaser in the open market
on the advice o f his solicitor. An additional burden
is imposed on solicitors dealing with the extremely
strict requirements o f the Land Registry rules.
Rule 242(1) (i) (
b
) o f the rules of 1937 provides that
the scale commission shall cover all charges in
connection with the cancellation o f the notice of
equities. This involves a great deal o f correspon
dence and work which is not done in the case o f
sales outside the Land Registry.
2. Costs o f sales and purchases o f registered land
where equities have been discharged, and of
sales and purchases where the property has
a note o f equities that may be cancelled after
the limited investigation o f title prescribed by
Rules 35 and 36 o f the Rules o f 1937.
Under the present rules the costs o f the Solicitors
for vendor and purchaser in these cases are one-
half o f the charges on the commission scale in
Part 1, Schedule 1, S.R.G.O., 1884, as amended.
The following table shows the present rates of
commission :—
(i)
For the
first
£ 1,0 0 0
M
For the
second
and
third
£1,000
(
3
)
For the
fourth
and each
subsequent
£i,oco up
to
£ io ,o c o
(
4
)
For each
subsequent
£i,oco
Vendor’s and
Purchaser’s
Solicitor
£2-
£ 1
IOS.
15s.
7s. 6d.
per £100 per
£ 10 0
per £100 per £100
Mortgagee’s
£ *
£ 1
IOS.
15s.
7s. 6d.
Solicitor
per £100 per £100 per £100 per £ ico
The submission of the Council is that these charges
should be a uniform rate o f 3% on the entire
purchase money instead o f the present rate of
2% on the first £1,000, descending to 7s. 6d.%
on the portion o f the purchase money exceeding
£10,000. The reasons in support o f a uniform
rate o f commission have been mentioned in
paragraph one. It is submitted that, in addition
to the adoption o f a uniform rate o f commission,
the scale applicable to cases where equities have
been discharged should be 75% instead o f the
present 50% o f the full scale fee. In many
counties throughout the country equities have
now been discharged on a great number o f holdings
and the time will come when equities will have
been discharged on all registered land. The effect
o f the reduction o f 50% in the scale fee has been
severely felt in its effect on solicitors’ remuneration,
and will be felt more severely as the years go by.
It is pointed out that auctioneers’ commission is
not affected by this reduction. A solicitor is not
absolved from the duty to investigate the title
merely by reason o f the fact that the equity note
has been cancelled. Reference is made to Keelan v.
Garvey (1925, I.L.T .R . 1). In that case it was held
that, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant
had been registered as full owner and that the
equity note had been cancelled, she was in fact
a trustee for the plaintiff, and that the register
would have to be rectified. The fact that the equity
note has been cancelled does not, therefore, obviate
the necessity o f further enquiries being made if
there is reason to suspect that the vendor may
be only a trustee, and there is a serious responsibility
on the solicitors acting for both vendor and
purchaser in such a case. It is believed that vendors
and purchasers o f registered land would not find
the proposed alterations in the scale fee onerous,
and it is submitted that the suggested reduction
o f 25 % oh the full scale would be fair and reasonable.
Apart from the foregoing, it will be borne in
mind that transactions on the registered title can
be o f a complex nature, in particular where they
arise under a series of settlements. In ,such instances
it is the practice o f the Registrar to limit the entry
in the Folio and to protect contingent interests by
an inhibition. The examination o f the deeds lying
behind the short entry in the Folio will involve
the purchaser’s solicitor in work no less arduous
than that o f an ordinary purchase of land registered
“ subject to equities.”
The following sample
requisition from the Land Registry prior to the
making o f an entry will help to illustrate this :
“ The effect o f the original Settlement herein is
to give a life interest in the property to the above-
named registered owner with a contingent fee
/