170 / 338
Sale of registered and unregistered land as one
lot. Costs
Members acted for a vendor of land which was
sold for £12,000 held under three different titles,
vi%.,
150 acres freehold registered land held free of
equities but subject to a land purchase annuity,
2 acres held in fee simple free of rent and i acre held
under lease for 900 years. The last mentioned two
parcels of land are not registered land within the
meaning of the Registration of Title Acts and the
whole three were sold as one lot without any
division of the purchase money. Members enquired
on what system the costs should be charged. By
sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph (3) of the Land
Registration Fees Order 1959 value for the purpose
of a transfer on sale means the amount of the money
consideration expressed in the transfer together with
the amount of any registered charge and it is provided
that where the transfer comprises unregistered
property also the value shall be the proportionate
cost of the consideration attributable to the registered
property only as certified by the solicitor for the
applicant or by a person who in the opinion of the
Registrar is competent to value property. The
Council stated that in their opinion the costs should
be calculated by apportioning the consideration
between two holdings, one being registered land
and the other unregistered land, on the basis of the
respective values and the appropriate commission
scale fee should be charged on each. The two
parcels of unregistered land one held in fee simple
and the other under lease should be regarded as one
holding for the purpose of costs.
Certificate of discharge of income tax
Members enquired whether the vendor is under
any liability to hand over a certificate under section 6
of the Finance Act 1928. They took the view that
a purchaser for value would not be liable for any
tax due by the vendor under schedules A or B and
consequently there would not be any obligation to
obtain the certificate and they referred to the case
of Dolan
v.
Joyce and Kirwan (61. I.L. T.R. 104).
The Council many years ago expressed the view that
a vendor's solicitor should obtain the statutory
certificate under section 6 without any additional
charge against the purchaser. The Council decided
to reaffirm this ruling and informed members that a
certificate of discharge of income tax under section 6
should be supplied without any charge against the
purchaser.
Part-time legal assistants
A report from a committee on the question
whether it is permissible or desirable to employ
agencies offering part-time legal assistance was
considered. The matter was referred to the Dublin
Solicitors Bar Association for their views.
Client's privilege against disclosure
A client when leaving the office of a solicitor whom
she had consulted on professional business fell down
the stairs and suffered personal injuries. She sub
sequently consulted the solicitor as to her rights
against the lessor of the premises. Member advised
her thereon. She subsequently sought other legal
advice as the result of which proceedings were
threatened against member and the lessor jointly
as being responsible for the maintenance of the
stairway. When member passed on the claim to
his insurance company they requested him to supply
information as to the conversations between member
and his former client on the subject of her injuries,
and member enquired whether the communications
were privileged. The Council stated that on the facts
submitted any information which member received
from the client as her solicitor was privileged and
that it should not be disclosed to the insurance
company.
Conflicting interests
A member was instructed by MR to act for her
in a claim for personal injuries arising out of an
accident while a passenger in a car driven by her
husband FR which collided with a car driven by SM.
When MR gave the instructions she was accom
panied by her husband FR and member had then in
his possession a copy of the husband's statement
taken by the Garda Siochana. At the same time he
accepted instructions from FR to write to the latter's
insurance company to protect his no claim bonus.
Member was advised that SM was responsible for
the accident but at the same time he thought it
advisable to notify FR lest counsel should advise
that the latter should be joined in the proceedings.
The insurance company of FR objected to member's
.
acting for MR having regard to his professional
position in relation to both MR and FR and member
sought guidance from the Council. The Council
expressed the view that member should not act
for MR in any proceedings brought by her against
FR.
December loth :
Mr. Halpin and subsequently
Mr. Nash in the Chair. Also present Messrs. Arthur
Cox, James R. Quirke, Dinnen B. Gilmore, Francis
J. Lanigan, George G. Overend, James R. Green,
James J. O'Connor, Thomas A. O'Reilly, Ralph
J. Walker, Brendan A. McGrath, Desmond J.
Collins, Thomas V. O'Connor, George A. Nolan,
John Carrigan, John J. Nash, John R. Halpin,
William J. V. Comerford, Augustus Cullen, John