The Gazette 1909-10

76 / 112

72 The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, [JANUARY, 1910
Solicitors' Annual Certificates,
MEMBERS are reminded that annual Certifi
cates for year ending 5th January, 1911, |
should be taken put, and the duties paid :
thereon, between the 5th clay of January
and the 6th day of February, 1910.
Calendar of Incorporated Law Society, 1910
THE Calendar and Law Directory, published
by the Society, for 1910. can be obtained in
the Secretary's office, price three shillings, or
by post three shillings and fourpence.
Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of decisions, whether in reported or
nnreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are
invited from Members.)
COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND).
(Before Vaughan Will Buckley, and
Kennedy, .)
Reynolds v. lds.
Nov. 26, 1909.— Solicitor — Costs — Com
promise of action without intervention of
Solicitor.
THE plaintiff brought an action to recover
£400, the balance due under a building
contract. Shortly before the action was
expected to be in the paper for trial by an
Official Referee, the plaintiff and defendant
had an interview, the only other person
present being the defendant's secretary, at
which, in spite of a written protest on the
part of the plaintiff's Solicitor, they settled
the action on certain terms, including the
payment by the defendant to the plaintiff
of £200 in discharge of all claims, including
costs. The defendant gave the plaintiff a
crossed cheque to order for £180, drawn on
a country bank, and the plaintiff, who was
an undischarged bankrupt, immediately
endorsed it to one of his sons. On hearing
of this the plaintiff's solicitor requested the
defendant to stop payment of the cheque,
but the defendant refused to do so. There
upon, on an application by the plaintiff's
Solicitor, the Official Referee made an order
that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's
Solicitor his costs on the ground that the
plaintiff and defendant had settled the action
behind the back of the plaintiff's Solicitor,
knowing and intending that the settlement
would have the effect of depriving the
Solicitor of his costs.
Held, that there was no evidence from
which it could be inferred that the defendant
intended the plaintiff's Solicitor to lose his
costs.
This was an appeal from an order of the
Divisional Court (Mr. Justice Darling and
Mr. Justice Bucknill) reversing an order of
the Official Referee. The Official Referee
ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's
Solicitor his costs on the ground that the
plaintiff and defendant had compromised and
settled the action behind the back of the
plaintiff's Solicitor, knowing and intending
that the compromise and settlement would
have the effect of depriving the Solicitor of
his costs, or part of them. The action which,
was ordered to be tried before the Official
Referee, was brought by a builder to recover
£400, the balance clue under a building
contract. The plaintiff and the defendant,
though of the same name, were not related
to one another. On March 10, when the
action was expected -to be in the paper in
three or four weeks' time, the plaintiff and
the defendant had an interview, the only
other person being present being the defen
dant's secretary, at which, in spite of a
written protest on the part of the plaintiff's
Solicitor, they settled the action on certain
terms, including the payment by the defen
dant to the plaintiff of £200 in discharge of
all claims, including costs. In pursuance of
this settlement the defendant gave the
plaintiff a crossed cheque to order for £180,
drawn on a country bank, and the plaintiff,
who was an undischarged bankrupt, im
mediately endorsed it to one of his sons.
The plaintiff's Solicitor, on hearing of this,
requested the defendant to stop payment of
the cheque, but the defendant refused to
do so. The plaintiff's Solicitor then obtained
the above order from the Official Referee,
which, however, was set aside by the
Divisional Court. The plaintiff's Solicitor
appealed.
Mr. J. A. Foote, K.C., and Mr. Frank
Newbolt appeared for the appellant; and
Mr. Atkin, K.C., and Mr. H. L. Tebbs for
the respondent.
The Court dismissed the appeal.
Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said that
in his judgment this appeal must be