308 / 364
are more and more the nephews and nieces.
The right of succession of a spouse is not
in the nature of "a forced share," and con
sequently it can l)e superseded by a will.
The freedom of
the
individual and his
rights
under the law are, it will be seen a reality.
Members may be particularly interested in the
chapter on Labour Law by Antti Suviranta,
LL.D.;
in view of the proposed Trade Union
Legislation. The book contains 363 pages, has
a useful index and is good value at the price.
THE WISDOM OF OTHERS
Good notes are of inestimable value in meeting
any criticism that may arise and in preparing a
defence to an allegation of negligence (Medical
Defence Union, annual report 1966).
Has not the time come to stop looking at our
own costs and consider fees and prices charged
by others? According to a news item in the
Times
on 27th October a camera with a landed price
of £100 is sold retail for £295. The retailer's
profit is stated to be £80. Investigation of other
peoples charges must surely put our own charges
into the correct perspective (letter in the
Solicitors
Journal).
I
cannot understand why
so
few
solicitors
specify
in contracts that the deposit should be
held by
them
instead of by the estate agent.
Many estate agents are most un-cooperative and
suggest
that
I
am doubting
their honesty by
insisting that the deposit should be held by my
firm. In many cases there is a simultaneous sale
and purchase and the solicitor has to calculate
accurately and in a short space of time the exact
amount needed to balance the transaction. When
a deposit is held by an estate agent it remains
in the hands of the estate agent for several days
after completion and the solicitor either has to
ask the client to provide more money or to advance
the money himself. There
is no reason at all
why
this should be necessary.
(Letter
in
the
Solicitors' journal).
CASES OF THE MONTH
Solicitor Accountable for Personal Profit
The English Court of Appeal affirming Wilber-
force J. held that the appellants were liable to
account for profit attributable to the respondents
share in the Trust Fund less the expenditure in
curred to enable it to be realised and making a
liberal allowance for professional skill and work
in earning it of the solicitor's appellants. The
appellants (purchasers) were solicitors who had
acted as agents
in an
initial approach to
the
Company and as proxies for the trustees at an
annual general meeting of
the Company. The
respondent, a benificfiary under the will claimed
an account of profits made as a result of the
purchase by the solicitor and his co-appellant of
shares in the company in which the trust had a
substantial holding. The appellants having made
the initial approach to the Company as proxies
for the trustee had obtained valuable information
about the company's affairs and, acting person
ally, they bought a substantial majority of shares
in the company. This purchase was made without
the knowledge of one of the trustees, an old lady,
but with the acquiescence of the two other trustees
and it resulted in a large profit to the appellants
and a benefit to the trustees' shareholding in the
company. The Court of Appeal affirming Wilber-
force J. held that the appellants were liable to
account. An appeal to the House of Lords was
dismissed by a majority. Viscount Dilhorne said
that liability to account must depend on there
being some breach of duty, some
impropriety
of conduct on the part of those in a fiduciary
position. On the facts of the present case he did
not consider that there was any breach of duty
of impropriety of conduct on the part of the
appellant and he would allow the appeal. Lord
Upjohn also delivered an opinion in favour of
allowing the appeal. Lords Coyne, Hodson and
Guest delivered opinions in favour of dismissing
the appeal basing their decision largely on Regal
(Hastings) Ltd. v Bullover (1942 1A11. E.R. 378).
(Bordman and others v Phipps).—
Times,
4th
November, 1966.
Professional Negligence
The Court of Appeal in England allowed an
interlocutory appeal by Mr. Ellis Lincoln, solicitor,
from an order made by the Judge in Chambers
on appeal from Master Lawrence. The Master
had given unconditional leave to the defendant
Mr. Lincoln to defend an action for damages,
for alledged negligence brought by the National
Union Bank Ltd., and the Judge on appeal by
the Bank had made leave to defend conditional
on payment of £5,000 in to Court by the de
fendant. The facts as stated
to
the Court of
Appeal were that the plaintiff Bank which was
incorporated in the Bahamas, sued Mr. Lincoln
for negligent misrepresentation in certain letters
written by Mr. Lincoln's managing clerk which
had the effect of
inducing the Bank
to
lend
money to a client of Mr. Lincoln who wanted
to obtain a bridging loan. It was alleged that the
managing clerk wrote to the bank manager re
ferring to certain properties and stating, "we have
92