240 / 338
the buildings had been completely or almost com
pletely finished before the leases were granted.
3. To summarise the position,
(a)
a lease of a site
with a
bonafide
unfulfilled covenant by the lessee to
expend an agreed amount on building is not charged
with duty on the capital expenditure even though the
money is to be paid to a named builder, e.g., the
lessor.
(&) Where there is an agreement for a lease
of a site at a rent only, and buildings are erected by
or on behalf of the lessee between the date of the
agreement and the granting of the lease, duty is not
charged on the capital moneys expended, provided
that the agreement for the lease and the building
agreement are separate and independently enforce
able,
(f)
Where, between the date of an agreement
for a lease of an undeveloped site and the granting
of the lease, buildings are erected on the site, either
by the lessor or by a third party, and under the terms
of the agreement the lessee is not entitled to enforce
the grant of the lease until the building price has
been paid to the builder, the money so paid is
regarded as consideration for the lease and
ad valorem
duty is charged in respect thereof.
CIRCUIT COURT.
SOLICITOR AND
OWN CLIENT COSTS
It is understood that the practice in the Taxing
Master's office is as follows :—The Taxing Masters
when taking bills of costs between solicitor and own
client will act reasonably. Generally they will allow
solicitors more than the party and party costs set
out in the Circuit Court rules.
They will not
necessarily allow costs on the High Court scale less
one third or less one fifth.
In particular cases they
might tax on such a basis but each matter will
depend upon its own facts and circumstances.
On a taxation of costs between solicitor and own
client it might be objected on behalf of a client that
the solicitor instituted proceedings on behalf of the
plaintiff for say £600 when he should have claimed
only £200 or £300 and that therefore the solicitor
who had not explained to the clients the incidence
of costs should be entitled to tax the costs only on
the basis of a claim for £200 to £300.
In such a
case the solicitor might be expected to satisfy the
taxing master that he is entitled to tax on the basis
of a claim for £600.
RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS
Solicitor—conduct unbefitting a solicitor not being pro
fessional misconduct—previous convictions—penalty,
A solicitor was convicted of using insulting
behaviour tending to cause a breach of the peace.
There was no evidence before the Disciplinary
Committee as to the circumstances giving rise to the
conviction.
The solicitor had previously been
convicted in 1956 on two charges of indecency and
had been suspended from practice for two years.
As the result of the conviction in 1959, the Disciplin
ary Committee directed that his name be struck off
the roll and he appealed. It was held by the Court
of Appeal that although not every type of conviction
on a criminal charge would show conduct unbefitting
a solicitor, nevertheless a conviction of insulting
behaviour followed by a sentence and the maximum
fine show such conduct and the findings of the
Disciplinary Committee should stand. As regards
sentence, in the absence of evidence before the
Committee as to the nature of the acts leading to
the conviction in 1959 the Committee were not
entitled to assume that they were similar to the
circumstances in the 1956 conviction. The Court
reduced the penalty to one year's suspension.
In
differing in the matter of the penalty, which the Court
said it would never do in a case of
professional
misconduct, the Court acted on the authority of re a
Solicitor (1956. 3. All E.R. 516) in which the Court
stated that they would interfere with the penalty
only because the conduct was not committed by the
solicitor in his professional capacity.
(Re a Solicitor (1960. 2. All E.R. 621)).
Deed—delivery by agent
—
escrow.
A
limited company
issued under
its
seal
a
debenture giving a
floating charge to a bank's
nominees.
The nominees were a wholly owned
subsidiary of the bank. The bank decided to call in
the loan and at the request of the bank the nominee
company sealed an undated deed appointing a
receiver in the presence of two directors of the
nominee company who signed the deed in the
ordinary course of attesting the affixing of the seal.
The nominee company did not intend the deed to
become unconditionally binding on them at the time
that the seal was affixed. The documents were sent
by the bank to their branch manager with instructions
failing immediate payment to hand the instrument of
appointment to the receiver. The branch manager
subsequently inserted the date in the deed appointing
the receiver and subsequently handed to the receiver
the deed of his appointment.
On the question
whether the receiver had been validly appointed,
viz., whether the deed appointing him had been
delivered as the deed of the nominee company or
was effective as an instrument under hand, it was
held by the English High Court that (i) delivery of
a deed was essential to its validity and the branch
manager of the bank was not an agent of the nominee
company duly authorised to deliver the deed of
appointment on its behalf because no such power
was conferred on him by the constitution of the
28