The Gazette 1961 - 64

Necessity to produce Stationery Office copy of Regulation— Prosecution under Road Traffic A.cts The Lord Chief Justice in the case of Palastanga v. Solman gave guidance to justices on what they should do when defending Counsel took the point that a copy from the Stationery Office of a well known statutory instrument upon which the pro secution relied had not been produced in Court. The Divisional Court had allowed an appeal by case stated against the dismissal of an information pre ferred by the appellant, a police inspector against the defendant Mrs. M. A. W. Solman alleging that she had on July 29th, 1961 caused a motor vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause unnecessary obstruction contrary to regulation 89 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1955. At the hearing, the prosecution did not produce the regula tions and Counsel for the defendant successfully submitted that the burden of proving that the regula tion had been made was on the prosecution and that this burden had not been discharged. In the opinion of his Lordship this was a disgraceful point to make, and he found it difficult to speak on it in moderate language. The regulation in question was well-known to everyone who administered the law and parti cularly to justices who dealt everyda]^ with cases under it. His Lordship stated that he wished to reserve for a future occasion the question of whether the Order was so notorious that judicial conizance could be taken without production of it in Court. He found it unnecessary to decide this point because it seemed to him that the justices should have adjourned the matter to enable the police inspector to get a Stationery Office copy. Ashworth and Atkinson, J. J., concurred. (The Times, February zist, 1962.) In a recent English case the lessors of property who were also the owners of the freehold interest therein sold their interest to their lessees. The sale was carried into effect by the following complicated series of transactions designed to avoid stamp duty. The freeholders, the trustees of the Independent Order of Oddfellows held the premises subject to a lease to Littlewood's Mail Order Stores Ltd., for 99 years from June 24th, 1947 at an annual rent of £23,444. This was substantially less than a rack rent. On December the 8th Oddfellows granted to Littlewoods a lease of the same premises for 22 years and ten days from that date at an annual rent of £6 per annum which lease operated as a surrender of the existing lease. On December 9th Littlewoods Stamp Duty on Deed of Exchange of Freehold Estate for Leasehold Interest—whether an Exchange or Conveyance on Sale

Neuberger Products, Ltd. ("1957) I.Q.B. 247 and after anxious consideration, his lordship had come to the conclusion that the solicitor had made certain deliberately inaccurate entries in his books with intent to deceive the accountants. The accountants should have known that he had not complied with the rules, although they did not : their breach of duty was not in using young and comparatively inexperienced audit clerks in relation to the detailed work, but, principally, in inadequate supervision. The partner had failed to appreciate to a proper extent that his duty as an accountant was wider than merely to protect the solicitor but extended to protecting clients and the public against carelessness or dishonesty on the part of the solicitor himself. However, in view of the finding that the solicitor knew that what he was doing was wrong, not only a technical breach of professional rules but against the law of the land, his claim failed. Action dismissed. The plaintiff was the registered owner of an acre of land upon which the defendant had built part of a house, planted shrubs, flowers and vegetables, placed obstructions and allowed his cattle to graze. In the ensuing Circuit Court action it was ordered that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the costs and witnesses' expenses of the proceedings when taxed and ascertained. There was no poor law valuation of the land in question. The County Registrar was of opinion that there was no appro priate scale of costs and consequently measured a sum for costs under rule 27 of Order 58 of the Circuit Court Rules, 1950. To assist him in arriving at this sum, he first considered representations of plaintiff and defendant and decided that the actual value of the land was between £500 and .£ 1,000 ; he then considered the plaintiff's Bill of Costs which was drawn according to the High Court scale less one third save that Counsel's fees were slightly higher than would be allowed if the appropriate Equity Scale applied. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court against the County Registrar's decision. On dismissal of the appeal, he appealed to the High Court. Held: the Registrar was not bound by any rules in this case, and he had acted properly and his taxation must stand. (John P. Curtin v. Patricia Coakley, Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal, May 26th, 1962, page 148.) Circuit Court Decree for damages for Trespass—Costs to Plaintiff. No Poor Law Valuation—Costs measured under Rule 27, Order 58 Circuit Court Rules 1950.