177 / 364
the 14th September, 1962
for
the purpose of
arranging terms of sale of certain freehold regis
tered lands of which the defendant was the regis
tered full owner. As to some of the lands the
registration was subject to certain rights of sup
port and maintenance reserved to her mother
during the latter's life. At the meeting the plain
tiff was acting as solicitor for and under the
instruction from a Mr. S. and Miss S. The terms
agreed upon at the meeting were embodied in
a letter dated 16th February, 1962 "re sale of her
lands
to the writer in trust for a client" and
accepting the terms of sale set out in that letter
and asking for delivery of a contract. No form of
contract was delivered or executed, it being sub
sequently agreed between the plaintiff and the
solicitor for the defendant that the terms of the
agreement were fully set out in
the letter of 16th
February, 1962. The plaintiff forwarded a cheque
to the solicitor for the defendant for the amount
of the agreed deposit and his letter was headed :
"Miss B. T. Walsh
to Self
(in Trust)." The
agreement made
between
the
plaintiff
and
Mr. S. and Miss S.
inter se
was that the plaintiff
should act independently of them until such time
as the matter had progressed to the stage when
a conveyance was being executed. The plaintiff
was to act as a trustee for Mr. S. and Miss S.
Held: by Budd J., 1. That on the facts of
the case the plaintiff contracted as principal and
was entitled to institute and prosecute the pro
ceedings in his own name.
2. That
the
letters
constituted
a note
or
memorandum of the contract sufficient to satisfy
the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. (Martin
J. Lavan v Bridget T. Walsh, I.L.T.R. Vol. XCIX
p. 147).
Immunity of Advocate
Mr. Justice Lawton recently dismissed an ap
peal by Mr. Norbert Fred Rondel, at present
detained
in H.M. Prison, Wandsworth, against
the order made by Master Lawrence, in Chambers
in May 1965 ordering that his statement of claim
against Mr. Michael Dominic Lawrence Worsley,
barrister-at-law, be struck out and the action dis
missed.
In June, 1965
the Plaintiff appealed
against the order to the Judge in Chambers (Mr.
Justice Browne), who adjourned the matter into
open court and invited the Official Solicitor to
instruct counsel as
amid curiae
since the appeal
raised a point of public interest, namely, whether
an action for negligence can lie against a bar
rister at the suit of a client for negligence in
and about the conduct of
the client's case
in
court.
It was held that any advocate, be he barrister
or solicitor, who appeared for a client before a
Court of law was an officer of justice just as the
Judge was, and, as in the case of a Judge, public
policy required that he be protected from law
suits brought by disgruntled litigants. Otherwise
a number of evils would follow. First, Judges
would no longer get from barristers and solici
tors acting as advocates the help which they got.
Instead of thinking how best to help their clients
and justice, they would think of how to protect
themselves. Secondly, unpleasant clients would
have difficulty in finding advocates to represent
them. Thirdly the Courts would be burdened with
cases well-nigh impossible to try. Plaintiffs might
allege, as
this plaintiff did,
that counsel had
been negligent in cross-examining as he did. To
try such an issue would mean a re-trial of the first
case. Worse would be cases in which the alleg
ation was an omission
to ask questions. Many
convicted of criminal offences, after having ex
hausted all rights of appeal, would seek years later
to get re-trial by an action of negligence against
their advocate. There would be no end to litig
ation.
His Lordship set out at length why advocates
could not be sued for negligence in and about
the conduct of their client's cases in Court and
had used the word "advocate" not "barrister"
because immunity from suit arose from the part
played by an advocate in the administration of
justice, not from membership of an Inn of Court.
Rondel v Worsley,
The Times
(December 22nd
1965).
CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has arisen as a result
of the introduction of the Housing Bill in Dail Eireann.
On 5/11/65 the Society wrote to the Minister for Local
Government as follows: —
"Dear Minister,
In the report in the
Irish Times
of November 3rd
on the debate in Dail Eireann on the Housing Bill Mr.
Mark Clinton, T.D., is reported as having made certain
statements on the subject of solicitors' costs, auctioneers'
fees and stamp duty. I enclose a copy of a letter to Mr.
Clinton of this date for your information.
In the same report you are reported as having said
that you offer no apology for the 1 per cent tax revenue
when the "Boyos" were taking a good deal more. In
fact the stamp duty charged by the State
is usually
considerably more
than
the amount of
the solicitors
costs. The newspaper report mentioned conveys a com
pletely wrong impression to the public and I am bring
ing this matter to your attention to remove any wrong
impression on your part.
71