The Gazette 1949-1952

Tenant Acts, and accordingly it was the right of the lessor’s solicitor to prepare the renewal lease, his costs being chargeable on the commission scale. Consultation Rooms On a report from the Finance Committee it was decided by the Council that in future the Members’ Hall, Council Chamber and Consultation Rooms should be available only for members of the Society. Leases granted in consideration o f a Fine and a Rent The Council considered a report from a Com­ mittee referring to a recommendation already published in the G azette that where a lease which is substantially a sale is granted in consideration of a fine as well as a rent, the agreement for the lease prepared by the solicitors for the parties ought to contain a stipulation providing that each party to the lease should pay his own solicitor’s costs. The Committee enquired whether this recommendation was intended to apply to the case of a lease o f a site for the erection of a dwelling house in consideration of a rent, and o f a small fine intended to reimburse the lessor for the proportionate cost o f the roads, drains, laying on water and similar matters. The Council decided that the recommendation already made in regard to the costs applies irrespective of the amount o f the fine. RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS OF SALE Burdens which affect registered land without registration under Section 47 o f the Registration o f Title Act, 1891 The effect of Section 15 o f the Registration of Title Act, 1942, is to make void any stipulation in a contract for sale or conditions o f sale that theVendor is not to be required to furnish evidence that the land sold is free from any burdens which affect it without registration under Section 47 o f the Regis­ tration o f Title Act 1891. This statutory provision in the view o f the Council is in the interests o f the public and the profession, as the practice of including stipulations which are unduly restrictive o f the purchaser’s right to investigate the title is to the advantage of neither the solicitors nor their clients. The attention o f the Council has been drawn to the following Condition of Sale which has been used in some localities since the passing of the Registration of Title Act, 1942. “ Any evidence which may be required as to the existence of any burdens, or the non-existence o f such, which may affect registered land without

registration under the provisions o f the Registration o f Title Acts will be given at the sole cost of the purchaser only.” It was hardly contemplated by the Legislature that the effect of Section 15 o f the Registration of Title Act, 1942, would have been to throw additional expense on purchasers, and it seems to the Council that this is another example of the objectionable practice o f making a purchaser liable for part of the vendor’s costs. The Council think that stipulations o f this kind should be avoided, and that the vendor should bear the expense o f producing whatever evidence is necessary that the burdens have been discharged. NEGATIVE AND COMMON SEARCHES EXPLANATIONS OF ACTS T he Council think it advisable to draw the attention o f solicitors acting for vendors to the importance, when explaining acts appearing on a search against premises which have been sold, o f ensuring that the explanations given are accurate. This applies particularly where the explanation is worded in such a way as to suggest that the facts have been personally investigated by the vendor’s solicitor and not merely supplied to him by his client. It is suggested that where an explanation is based on information supplied by the client and not on the solicitor’s personal investigation o f the facts the source o f the information be stated in order to avoid any misunderstanding. PROFESSIONAL ITEMS Withdrawal or amendment o f Bill o f Costs M r . J ustice K ingsmill M oore gave judgment in a case o f interest to the profession in the case of White v. Boggs (85, I.L.T .R . 1.). The plaintiff was solicitor for the father o f the defendant and also for the defendant in connection with the sale o f several holdings o f unregistered land, and had also acted as the purchaser’s solicitor in the same transactions. The defendant was sued as the vendor and personal representative o f the vendor in connection with the respective sales. The solicitor thought that he was entitled to one set o f charges only, divisible equally between the vendor and purchaser in each case. This opinion was in point o f fact erroneous, the amount o f the charges depending upon the facts in each case. See Wilson to Best and another (1915, I. I.R . 58). Payment o f the bill by the defendant was delayed owing to a dispute, and the plaintiff 72