96 / 266
and found that in that case the charges o f the
solicitors were much less. He therefore took out
an originating summons asking that the bill should
be referred for taxation or, alternatively, that the
respondent’s firm should be ordered to deliver a
detailed bill of their charges under article i of the
Solicitors’ Remuneration (Gross Sum) Order, 1934.
Mr. Justice Vaisey held that the delivery of the
bill for £735 was a charge within the meaning of
the proviso to that paragraph, and as the applicant
had not required the delivery of a detailed bill
within the time allowed by the proviso he was out
o f time and the summons must be dismissed.
The client appealed.
Mr.. Co2ens-Hardy appeared for the appellant;
Mr. J. P. Hunter-Brown for the solicitor.
The Solicitors’ Remuneration (Gross Sum) Order,
1934, made in pursuance of section 56 (1) of the
Solicitors Act, 1932, provides : “ Without prejudice
to the power possessed by the Court under the
Solicitors Act, 1932, . . . the remuneration o f a
solicitor . . . may at the option of the solicitor be
by a gross sum in lieu o f a detailed charges : Provided
that within six months after delivery of a charge
made under this order . . . the client may require
that a detailed bill of charges shall be delivered and
the solicitor shall thereupon comply with the
requisition, and any bill so delivered shall be subject
to taxation . . . ”
The Mast r o f the Rolls said that £735 was in
tact considerably less than the solicitors might
legally have charged.' He expressed no opinion on
the point argued before Mr. Justice Vaisey because,
in this Court, another point had been taken which
s emed to him conclusive. The case was governed
by the order of 1934, and that order dealt only with
the remuneration of the solicitor as distinct from
any disbursements made by him. The order did not
authorise the charging of a lump sum to cover both
professional services and disbursements and the
charge of £735 was therefore not within it. The
position was that no bill had ever been delivered,
and the client was now entitled to call for a detailed
bill if the Court, in its discretion, saw fit to allow
him to do so. That discretion must be exercised in
view of the facts of the particular case, and here he
had not, in any way, by his conduct lost the right to
call for a proper bill. The appeal must be allowed,
and an order made for the delivery of a detailed bill
as required.
Lord Justice Birkett and Lord Justice Romer
agreed.
(In
re
a Solicitor.
The Times,
1st May, 1953).
SOLICITORS’ REMUNERATION
GENERAL ORDER, 19 5 1
Sales under the Land Clauses Acts.
R
ule
i i
,
Schedule I, Part I, of the Solicitors’
Remuneration General Order 1884, provided that in
cases of sales under the Land Clauses Consolidation
Acts or any other private or public act under
which the vendor’s charges are paid by the pur
chaser the scale shall not apply. This meant that
in cases to which the rule applied the solicilor’s
charges were drawn in detail instead o f on the com
mission scale. In general it was to the advantage of
the solicitor to charge in detail in cases where the
purchase money was small. Where the purchase
money was substantial it was more profitable to
charge the commission scale fee. Rule 1 1 , Schedule I,
Part I o f the Solicitors’ Remuneration General
Order, 1884 (printed at page 426 of the 1953 Calendar
and Law Directory) was rescinded by Rule III of the
Solicitors’ Remuneration General Order, 1951,
printed at page 434 of the 1953 Calendar and Law
Directory, in the case o f business completed on or
after 1st January, 1952. Inquiries have been re
ceived from members as to the effect of the rescission
o f Rule 1 1 , in the case o f small plots which are
acquired under the provisions of the Land Clauses
Consolidation Acts. The attention o f members is
drawn to paragraph 6 of the Solicitors’ Remunera
tion General Order, 1884 (Calendar and Law
Directory, 1953, page 423), which provides as
follows:—-“ In all cases to which the scales pre
scribed in Schedule I hereto shall apply, a solicitor
may, before undertaking any business, by writing
under his hand, communicated to the client, elect
that his remuneration shall be according to the
present system as altered by Schedule II hereto ;
but, if no such election shall be made, his remunera
tion shall be according to the scale prescribed by
this Order.” A solicitor acting for a body acquiring
land under the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts
may, by giving to the client the notice prescribed by
paragraph 6, elect that his costs shall be charged in
detail. A solicitor acting for an owner whose lands
are being acquired may elect in the same way by
giving similar notice to the client. In either case
the notice must be given before any business is
undertaken. When acting for a client whose lands
are being acquired a solicitor wishing to elect under
Rule 6, may also consider it advisable to give notice
to the acquiring authority before undertaking any
business.
STAMP DUTIES
T
he
following letter has been received from the
Revenue Commissioners in reply to the memoran-
8