The Gazette 1949-1952

vvere a danger that advantage would be taken of such a concession to jeopardise his client’s interests. It has always been clearly understood that such arrangements are purely personal between counsel who are not entitled, and do not seek, to bind their clients by any concessions made without express instructions. (Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal.) Notice to quit—Uncertainty as to commence­ ment o f tenancy I n Colfix (Dublin) Ltd. v. Hendron Bros. (Dublin) Ltd. (88 L.L.T .R . 45), a case of ejectment for overholding, the tenancy was created on an un­ certain date in April or May, 1933, by oral agreement between a director of the plaintiff company and a representative of the defendant company. The rent was payable monthly. On 17th April, 1947, the following notice to quit was served by the plaintiff company on the defendant company: “ We Colfix (Dublin) Ltd., having our registered office at East Wall Road, Dublin, C.io, hereby give you notice to quit and deliver up to us on the 1st day of June, 1947, possession o f all that the yard being portion o f our premises at East Wall Road in the City o f Dublin, on the corner o f Sheriff Street and East Wall Road, which you now hold from us as tenant from month to month or tenant at will.” The defendant company, on receipt o f the notice to quit, served a notice of intention to claim relief under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. The plaintiffs served an ejectment civil bill for overholding, on which the Circuit Court judge gave a decree for possession. On appeal to the High Court, the evidence as to the actual date of the commencement of the tenancy was vague, and there was no accurate written record in evidence as to the date o f the oral letting agreement. Mr. Justice Martin Maguire held that, in the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the date when the tenancy commenced, and as the notice to quit was given for 1 st June, 1947, and no alternative date was given, it had to be good for that date or bad altogether. He held, that on the facts before him, che notice to quit was bad, and reversed the order o f the Circuit Court. Solicitors’ application for a new lease P art I of the British Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, enables a tenant to claim compensation for improvements and goodwill on the termination o f a tenancy of business premises. Section 5 of the same Act entitles the tenant to obtain a new lease of the premises in certain cases, where he can

prove that compensation under the section would not be adequate compensation for the loss he would suffer if he removed to or carried on his trade or business in other premises. Section 17(3) provides that, for the purposes o f Part I of the Act, premises shall not be deemed to be premises used for carrying on thereat a trade or business {a) by reason o f their being used for carrying on thereat any profession. The solicitors applied under section 5 for a new lease of their office premises. The County Court judge found that a considerable amount of business, including building society and insurance business, was carried on by the applicants apart from their professional activities as solicitors,, and that if the applicants left the premises they would be worth more to another solicitor by reason o f the tenants’ activities, and accordingly held that goodwill attached to the premises. He found that the tenants were entitled to a new lease under section 5 of the Act. The landlords appealed. Counsel for the solicitors argued that, as it had been found that goodwill existed, it was sufficient, in order to found the application for the new tenancy, to show that a business, as distinct from a profession, was carried on by the tenants, without showing that the goodwill was referable exclusively to the business. The Court of Appeal declined to accept this view and held that the only way o f showing that goodwill attached to the premises by reason of the carrying on there of a trade or business was by bringing evidence on which the court could ascertain what goodwill was actually referable to that trade or business, as distinct from what was referable to the profession, and that the profession must not be brought in for the purpose of the claim to compensation or to a new lease. This decision, although of interest to solicitors, does not affect the legal position in Ireland, as the term “ business ” in section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, is defined as meaning “ any trade, profession or business carried on for- gain or reward ” in contrast to section 17 of the British I n James Bibby, Ltd. v. Woods (Howard, Garnishee) (207 L.T. 314), certain judgment creditors obtained a garnishee order on a sum o f £90 which became payable to the judgment debtor on the compromise of certain actions to which he was a party. On 4th March, on the application by the judgment creditors to have the garnishee order made absolute, the judgment debtor stated that his solicitor claimed to be entitled to a charge on the garnished debt for his costs. The solicitor knew of the garnishee 12 Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927. Solicitor’s lien for costs