332 / 364
Lessee's Solicitor doing Lessor's Solicitor's work
An agreement for a lease provided that the
lease
and counterpart were
to
be prepared,
stamped and registered by the lessor's solicitor
at the expense of the lessee. The lease was granted
in consideration of a substantial fine and a rent.
The lease and counterpart were in fact prepared
by the
lessee's solicitor and approved by
the
lessor's solicitor but there was no formal agree
ment as to the reversal of the work. Members
referred to Opinion C.52 of the Council and ask
for a ruling as to the amount of the costs and
to whom they should be paid.
The Council decided that:
(i) The decision in Clarke v Simms-Ilet would
have applied had it not been displaced by
the stipulation in the contract as to pay
ment by the lessee of the lessors costs,
(ii) If the lessor did not carry out all
the
work specified in the S.R.G.O. his costs
would be chargeable under Schedule 2.
(iii) In order to bring Council Opinion C.52
into operation it must be shown that ihere
was agreement between the solicitors that
the usual work would be
reversed and
likewise the costs.
March 2nd: The President in the chair, also
present, Messrs George A. Nolan, Eunan Mc-
Carron, John Carrigan, John Maher, Francis Arm
strong, John C. O'Carroll, Thomas H. Bacon,
Brendan A. McGrath, Desmond Moran, Ralph
J. Walker, Peter D. M. Prentice, T. E. O'Donnell,
Desmond J. Gollins, John J. Nash, Daniel J.
O'Connor, Robert McD Taylor, Geralld Y. Gold-
berg, John B. Jermyn, James W. O'Donovan, T.
V. O'Connor, T. J. C. O'Keeffe, William A.
Osborne, Thomas Jackson, Bruce St. J. Blake,
George G. Overend, Francis J. Lanigan, Patrick
O'Donnell, P. C. Moore, Gerard M. Doyle, Regi
nald J. Nolan, Peter E. O'Connell, James R. C.
Green, Gerald J. Moloney, Rory O'Connor.
The following was among the business trans
acted :
Solicitors' Accounts Regulations 1967
The Council made the above regulations con
solidating all the Solicitors' Accounts Regulations
to date including the accountants' certificate pro
visions. All
the previous regulations have been
revoked. A copy of the new regulations is en
closed with this issue of the GAZETTE. To avoid
confusion members should discard the Solicitors'
Accounts (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1966
(S.I. No. 193 of 1966) enclosed with the last
issue of the GAZETTE.
Debt Collecting
The Council have approved a new commission
scale in debt collecting matters in substitution
of existing scale. A circular will be
issued
to
members in the near future.
WEEK-END MEETING
Members wishing to attend the week-end
meeting in Cork from 19th to 21st May
are advised to book their accommodation
immediately.
CHAIN OF EXECUTORSHIP
Death Duties
An article in the last number of the GAZETTE
pointed out that while the law as to the chain
of executorship was changed by Section 19 of the
Succession Act 1965, Section
10
(5)
of
that
Act provides that unadministered estate vested in
a personal representative who has died will vest
in his own personal representative as trustee and
that the latter as such trustee will be liable under
Section 8
(4) of the Finance Act 1894 to any
claim for duty affecting that property. The fol
lowing correspondence has passed between
the
Society and the Assistant Secretary, Estate Duty
Branch, Revenue Commissioners :
3lst January
1967,
Society to Revenue Com
missioners —
Liability for Duty
Thank you for your letter of January 10th.
There appears to be two areas of risk where an
executor takes out a grant to his testator without
ascertaining whether the latter was during his life
time executor or trustee.
(a) The last executor may be accountable for
duty on the original estate if he neglects or
fails
to get in any outstanding assets on
which duty has not been paid.
(b) Any unpaid duty on the original estate is a
debt due by the executor and his executor
should provide for it out of the assets which
he is administering.
It would obviously be impracticable and incon
venient for an executor before deciding to act
in that capacity to make enquiries as to any es-
118