258 / 264
GAZETTE
DECEMBER 1977
RECENT ENGLISH CASES
Irish Statute of Frauds — 1695
A concluded unilateral contract whereby the parties
agreed to enter into a contract for the sale of land was
held
to be unenforceable. The unilateral contract was
subject to the 1695 Act since it was a contract for a
"disposition of [an] interest in land." The interest, which
could be a future one, derived from the equitable interest
that would arise from the contract for sale and the specific
enforceability of that contract. There was no written note
or memorandum sufficient for the 1695 Act. Nor were
there sufficient acts of part performance. The purchasers
relied on the acts done by them to satisfy the conditions of
the unilateral contract, but none of those acts pointed to a
contract between the parties. They could only be regarded
as part performance if looked at in the light of the terms
of the oral contract, but
Steadman
v.
Steadman
[1974]
C.L.Y. 3968 forbade such an enquiry. Buckley LJ. made
(avowedly obiter) observations on the true ratio of
Law v.
Jones
[1973] C.L.Y. 3457 and the extent to which that
case was in conflict with
Tiverton Estates
v.
Wearwell
[1974] C.L.Y. 3952: Draulla v. Four Mfllbank Nominees,
The Times,
December 3, 1977, C.A.
Solicitors—fees—review of conveyancing fees
[Solicitors Remuneration Order 1972 (S.I. 1972 No.
1139).] The Department of the Environment sought a
review of solicitors' professional charges of £9,000 in
connection with the preparation, settlement and
completion of a lease of offices. The value of the land was
£lm, and the cost of redevelopment amounted to a
further £lm. The lease was for 40 years at a rental of
£190,035 per annum. The taxing master had ordered that
the costs be reduced to £6,900.
Held,
that (1) an hourly
cost rate applied to recorded time only indicated the
minimum figure the solicitor must charge, and was only
one of a number of cross-checks on the reasonableness of
the final figure; (2) it was reasonable to the client that
remuneration should not be disproportionate to the value
of the property; j per cent, on the first £250,000 in a
major transaction and thereafter regressing, provided a
reasonable method of assessment, but this figure should
not be added to the remuneration for other elements; it is
merely a check that the provisional figure bears a
reasonable relationship to the value of the property; (3)
the nature of the client's interest in the property was
irrelevant; what mattered was the effect which that nature
had on skill, work, complexity, etc. The court substituted
a figure of £8,000. (
Property and Reversionary Investment
Corp. v. Templar
[1975] C.L.Y. 3292 considered):
Treasury Solicitor v. Regester,
The Times,
December 23,
1977, Donaldson J.
Solicitors — practising certificate — failure to renew —
whether "unqualified" person bars firm from
recovering costs
[Partnership Act 1890 (c. 39), s. 34; Solicitors Act
1957 (c. 27), ss. 18, 23.] While a firm of solicitors was
acting in litigation for W, one of their partners neglected
to renew his practising certificate; under ss. 18 and 23 of
the Solicitors Act 1957, W resisted payment of the costs
which would otherwise have been due from him. Held,
Bridge L.J. dissenting, that the partnership had been
dissolved by force of law under s. 34 of the Partnership
Act 1890 when the solicitor ceased to be qualified and,
since all the work done for W had been the responsibility
of another solicitor, the solicitors could recover their
costs: Hudgell, Yeates & Co., v. Watson,
The Times,
December 6, 1977, C.A.
Planning Acts
—planning permission — refusal
to r enew t empor a ry permi ss ions —
Secretary of State's decision
ultra vires
The applicants used premises in Mayfair for office use
under temporary planning permissions. When these
expired the Council refused to renew them and the
Secretary of State upheld this refusal even though
evidence called before the inspector showed that they
could not be economically converted to residential use at
the present and the inspector recommended an extension
of five years for the permissions. The Court concluded
that the Minister had not acted in accordance with his
policy as laid down in the development plan of permitting
such extensions and so had acted ultra vires, and his
decision was quashed: Niarchos (London) v. Secretary of
State for the Environment,
The Times,
December 16,
1977, Sir Douglas Frank Q.C.
WORKING PAPERS
OF THE
LAW REFORM
COMMISSION
No. 1—1977: The liability of Builders,
Vendors and Lessors for the Quality
and Fitness of Premises
£1.50 (postage 20p extra)
No. 2—1977: The Age of Majority
£2.00 (postage 20p extra)
No. 3—1977: Civil Liability for
Animals
£1.50 (postage 20p extra)
Available from:
THE LAW REFORM COMMI SS I ON
River House,
Ch a n c e ry S t r ee t,
Dublin 7
or
W. K I NG LTD.
L aw S t a t i one r s,
1 8 Eustace S t r e e,
Dublin 1
215