348 / 364
lecture on Estate Duty Office Practice. The prac
tical problems were dealt with in the discussion
that followed.
There was a lecture given on April 27th on
Pension Schemes. The lecture following will be
held on 25th May on Motor Claims Practice.
The Society's A.G.M. will be held on 29th
June, 1967 at 8 p.m., at Buswells Hotel, Dublin.
The latest releases from the Transcript Service
are as follows :
8D
(2) Cork Discussion of Succession Act
6/-, by post 6/9.
22 Lecture on Estate Duty Office Practice
7/- by post 7/9.
Orders for available Transcripts and Subscriptions
(£1-1-0) should be sent to
the Treasurer, 15,
Braemor Park, Dublin 14.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Solicitor's Negligence
On June 30, 1960, the defendant, a solicitor,
agreed with the plaintiff to act on her behalf in
defending divorce proceedings brought against her
by her husband on the ground of desertion. He
failed to put in an answer as he should have done.
Subsequently the husband applied for leave to
amend the petition by adding a prayer for the
exercise of the court's discretion, and the defend
ant failed also to cross-petition for dissolution on
the ground of
the husband's adultery as
the
plaintiff desired. As a result, the husband's peti
tion was heard as an undefended suit and a
decree nisi pronounced in his favour. A month
later the defendant consulted counsel, who advised
that there was no point in the plaintiff trying to
reopen the decree, that she should approach the
husband's solicitor for maintenance for her son,
then aged 16. The plaintiff accepted that advice
and as a result no application was made to set
aside the decree nisi, on January 24, 1962, the
husband's decree was made absolute. No applica
tion for maintenance was ever made.
In 1963, the plaintiff obtained legal aid and
brought the present action against the defendant
for negligence. Some two weeks before the trial,
the defendant paid £1,500 into court. Lawton J.
held that had the petition been defended, the
probabilities were that the court would have ad
judged the plaintiff the party whose conduct was
the substantial cause of the breakdown of the
marriage, to which the husband had contributed,
and pronounced a decree in favour of the hus
band. He found that the defendant had been
negligent and held that the plaintiff was entitled
to recover damages (a) for the loss of her chance
of obtaining maintenance for her son, which he
assessed at £160; (b) for the loss of her chance
of obtaining a more favourable outcome of the
divorce suit, which he assessed at £200; and
(c) for the loss of her chance of obtaining main
tenance for herself, which he assessed at £750;
but he held that she was not entitled to damages
in respect of her ensuing ill-health and loss or
earnings, since they were too remote. He assessed
the sum of £200 as the plaintiff's contribution to
the defendant's costs after the date of payment
into court.
On appeal by the plaintiff and cross-appeal
by the defendant on the issue of damages alone :
Held,
dismissing
the appeals,
(1)
that
the
plaintiff was entitled to recover damages under
heads (a), (b) and (c) and there was no reason
to interfere with the assessments of the trial judge
under these heads.
(2) That the plaintiff was not entitled to dam
ages in respect of her breakdown in health, since
that was not a reasonably foreseeable result of the
plaintiff's failure in the litigation, owing to the
solicitor's negligence, and was therefore too re
mote.
(3) That ordinarily a defendant who made a
payment into court ought to be awarded the costs
incurred after such payment, even
though he
failed on liability; but there was a wide dis
cretion in the case of a plaintiff who was legally
aided, and the judge could take into account the
fact that the plaintiff had an award of damages
in her favour; that account had to be taken of
the Legal Aid Fund's charge on the damages to
cover their costs in fighting the case, and since
in this case the whole of the damages would be
absorbed by the costs incurred by the Legal Aid
Fund, it was really a contest between the Legal
Aid Fund and the defendant, who should have
his costs from the date of payment in; and there
should be a set-off against the damages and costs
awarded to the plaintiff, who, having a nil con
tribution, should not be ordered to pay person
ally any of the excess.
(Cook v Swinfen [1967]
1 W.L.R.).
Solicitor struck off the Roll — Justified
On 24th October, 1966, at a hearing postponed
from 22nd August, 1966 a solicitor appeared be
fore the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Soci
ety. The allegations against him were that his
conduct was unbefitting as a solicitor in relation,
inter alia,
to a divorce case,
in which it was
allegeded that he had taken matters
into his
134