241 / 364
8. The following charges may be added
where applicable in addition to the fixed
fees and charges as set out above
in
numbers 1
to 7 inclusive:
(a) Attending to attest, execute, witness
or generally notarise any document
outside notary's office, up to 1 mile
distance and within City
.........
1
5
0
Over 1 mile or outside City, time
going and returning not over 1 hour
1
15
0
Over 1 hour and up to 3 hours ......
3 10
0
Over 3 hours
........................... 660
Over 6 hours
........................ 880
Second day or part of a day:
Up to 3 hours
.................. 660
Over 3 hours
..................... 880
(bl Add all other outlay properly and
necessarily incurred by way of Stamp
Duty, Taxi-fares, Travelling expen
ses, etc.
9.
(a'l
(i) Writing,
signing
and
trans
mission of letter not exceeding
one folio
........................
15
0
(ii) Exceeding one folio
............
100
(b)
(i) Each attendance not herein
before provided and
in
the
Office
of
the Notary — for
each subseqeutn half hour oc
cupied
...........................
1
2
5
(ii) Each attendance not herein
before provided and
in
the
Office
of
the Notary — for
each subsequent half hour oc
cupied
...........................
16 10
(c) Each attendance outside the Office
of the Notary for each half hour
necessarily absent
from Office of
Notary
.................................
1
5
0
(d) Mileage and/or travelling expenses
(I/- per mile minimum).
10. Any other work for advice—appertaining
to Notarial matters not hereinbefore men
tioned—such fee
as may be
fair and
reasonable having regard to all the cir
cumstances of the matter.
Dated 10th March, 1966.
Issued by and with the authority of the Faculty of
Notaries Public.
EDWARD J. MONTGOMERY Dean.
TOIRLEACH DE VALERA Registrar.
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE FOR
TAKING DEFECTIVE LEASES
'
The attention of the Council was drawn to the
English case Hill v. Harris (1965 2 All E.R. 358)
in which the plaintiff was a sub-lessee and the
defendant a sub-lessor of premises which were let
for a term of thirteen and a half years at the
yeiarly rent of £206 subject to a convenant by the
sub-lessee not to carry on in or upon the premises
the trade or business of a licenced victualler,
publican or any dangerous or noisy
trade or
business or any business whatsoever other than
that of a confectioner or tobacco retailer.
During the course of the negotiations with the
Estate Agents the plaintiff, Hill, informed them
that he wanted the premises for the purposes of
a confectionery and
tobacco business and was
informed in reply that this would be alright.
The plaintiff's solicitors informed the defend
ant's solicitors that their client intended to use
the premises
for a confectionery and
tobacco
business and that they were instructed that this
was a properly permitted use.
The sub-lessor's solicitors never gave any speci
fic reply, but in due course they sent the sub
lessee's solicitor a draft sub-lease containing the
covenant against user other than that of a con
fectionery and tobacco retailer.
In point of fact the lease from the freeholder
contained a covenant by the lessee not to use
the premises other than for the purpose of boot
and shoe makers and dealers, and not to use the
upstairs rooms for any purpose other than living
accommodation.
The sub-lessee brought an action against the
sub-lessor for breach of warranty and the action
failed. The Court of Appeal in England held that
neither the correspondence nor the conversations
nor the terms of
the sub-lease containing the
covenant as to user for confectionery and tobacco
business, amounted to a warranty that the user
was aouthorised by the superior lease. These were
merely matters of conversation during the pro
gress of negotiations.
In the course of his judgment, dismissing the
Appeal, Russell, L. J., stated, by way of
obiter
dictum,
that he could not see what conceivable
defence
the solicitors acting
for
the Plaintiff
would have to claim for equivalent damages for
negligence on their part in that they did not take
the ordinary conveyancing precaution before al
lowing their client to take a sub lease of finding
out by inspection of the head lease what were
the covenants restrictive of user or otherwise con
tained therein.
This case raises serious implications for solicitors.
A
lessee,
in
the absence of stipulation
to
the
contrary, is not entitled to investigate the lessor's
title, neither has it been common practice, on
taking a lease for a short term, to require pro
duction of all superior
leases
to ascertain
the
existence or otherwise of restrictive covenants.
The Council have taken the opinion of counsel
who has advised that while the decision of the
English Court of Appeal is special to the facts
23