The Gazette 1964/67

79 / 364

the husband lent £1,000 to the wife which was
acknowledged by the wife's solicitors. The pro
ceedings terminated in March, 1963, and there was
then correspondence between the solicitors acting
for the parties concerning the costs, with a view to
agreeing the amount so as to avoid taxation. Agree
ment was reached that the husband pay to the wife
£1,500 to cover the costs in the divorce suit and
another matter which had been discontinued. After
that agreement had been reached, the husband's
solicitors requested that the £1,000 owed by the wife
be dealt with at the same time. The wife's solicitors
replied that that was a separate matter with which
they were not concerned. The husband's solicitors
then sent a cheque for £500 on account of the agreed
costs and stated that the balance w e paid when
the £1,000 was collected. Davies, . said that it
was well established that costs or to be paid
were property recovered in an action, and charging
orders might be made upon them : It was submitted
that under s. 72 of the Solicitors Act, 1957, the court
had no power to make any directions except in
respect of taxed costs. Against that it was argued
that the court had an inherent jurisdiction and power
at common law not limited to taxed costs, and that a
solicitor was prima facie entitled to a charging order
for the protection of his proper costs. It was un
necessary to decide those points, as any decision to
make a charging order must be in the discretion of
the court, and in the present case, as the parties were
both wealthy persons, a charging order was not
necessary. It would be unjust for the court to order
the husband to pay the £1,000 or that the solicitors
be given a charge on the £1,000.
(Saunders v. Saunders (1965) 2. W.L.R. 33.)
Counsel's admission not binding
In the latest edition of Halsbury's Laws of England
(vol. 3 at page 62) on barristers it is said that the
statements of counsel, if made at the trial of an action
or in the course of any interlocutory proceedings in
the presence of the client or his solicitors, or someone
authorised to represent them, and not repudiated,
" bind the client and may be used as evidence
against him.". This statement was considered in a
recent case before the English Court of Appeal
which was of the opinion that it is too wide. The
Court held on the particular facts that where an
admission had been made by counsel before a District
Registrar in the presence of a solicitor's managing
clerk, but in the absence of the client, the client was
not bound by the admission. The defendant had put
certain property up for sale by public auction but
changed his mind before the auction and made a
communication to that effect which did not get
through to the auctioneers who sold the property
to the highest bidder. The defendant repudiated the
sale and went to other solicitors and the buyers
brought an action for specific performance. The
contract had been signed by the solicitor acting for
the defendant at the time of the purported sale and
during the hearing before the District Registrar
counsel admitted that the solicitor had authority to
sign it. Eventually the matter came before Mr.
Justice Pennycuick and affidavits had been filed
denying the solicitor's authority to sign. It is
established law that a solicitor, unlike an auctioneer,
has no ostensible or apparent authority to sign a
contract of sale on behalf of a client. Pennycuick, J.
decided against the defendant because he held that
he was bound by counsel's admission before the
District Registrar. On an appeal to the Court of
Appeal it was pointed out that the counsel who
appeared on the summons before the District
Registrar was not the counsel who had been in
conference with the defendant and the managing
clerk who had been present when the admission was
made by counsel was not the solicitor who had been
present at a material conference. The Court of
Appeal held that an admission made by counsel in
the course of proceedings could be withdrawn
unless there was something in the nature of a real
estoppel in the same manner as an admission made
by a party in person if the statement had not been
acted on by the other side to their detriment. There
was no reason why a man should be any worse off
in this respect if instead of making the admission
himself it was made on his behalf by counsel. In
the event the Court allowed the appeal and gave
leave to defend the action.
CH. Clarke (Doncaster) Ltd. v. Wilkinson. The
Times, 27th January, 1965.)
THE REGISTRY
Register A
FOR SALE : Established Solicitor's Practice in progressive
Western Town. Apply Box No. A.ZZJ.
LADY SOLICITOR required as Assistant for Cork City Office.
Reply to Box No. A. 226.
WANTED, Qualified or Unqualified Assistant for busy Solicitor's
office in Provincial Town. Particulars to Box No. A. 227.
Register C.
ANNE G. NICHOLS, deceased, 40 Merlyn Park, Ballsbridge,
Dublin. Any person having a Will of the above deceased,
please communicate with Moore, Keily & Lloyd, 31 Moles-
worth Street, Dublin 2.
WILL any Solicitor or other person having knowledge of a
Will of Susan Elizabeth Keegan, late of 2 Shanganagh Terrace,
Killiney who died on the 3151 day of January, 1965, kindly
communicate with S. G. Rutherford & Co., Solicitors,
31 Lower Leeson Street, Dublin 2.
73