The Gazette 1949-1952

because o f this the rent is not a rack rent. The lessee’s solicitor contended that the rent is a rack rent (See Opinion No. 77, Calendar 1951, p. 489). On a re­ port from a Committee, Council decided that the rent fixed by the Court under Part 3 o f the Landlord and Tenant Act, 19 31, inter partes is not necessarily a rack rent. A rack rent is defined as the full annual value o f the premises or near it. (Ex parte Connolly 190°, I., I.R.6., and in re Sawyer & Wythall 1919, 2 Ch. 333.) The Council have already decided Opinion 77) that the permitted rent under the Increase o f Rent Acts is a rack rent within the meaning o f S.R.G.O. 1884, Schedule 1, part 2. The position under the Increase of Rent Acts is distinguishable from that under the Landlord and Tenant Act 19 31, Part 3. In the former case the maximum rent is controlled by statute for all landlords and tenants of the property. In the latter- case the fair rent is fixed by the Court between a particular landlord and a particular tenant. Superior Court fees A Committee was set up by the Minister for Justice to revise the fees in the Supreme Court and High Court and Messrs. Arthur Cox and Sean O hUadhaigh were appointed as the Society’s representatives. By a majority (Messrs Cox and O hUadhaigh dissenting), the Committee prepared a draft report the general effect o f which is that Court fees will be doubled and in some cases, trebled. Furthermore the fees payable in bankruptcy matters which are assessed on the value o f the property realised have been increased by raising the rate. It was decided that the Society’s re­ presentatives should send in a minority report drawing attention to the fact that the rate o f ad valorem fees has been raised although the value of property on which they are assessed has substantially increased since 1939, suggesting that ad valorem fees should not be increased, and that the maximum increase in respect o f fixed fees should be 50 per cent, over pre-war. Business cards M embers enquired whether it is permissible to use a business card with the address and telephone number o f the firm and the names o f the partners. The Council expressed the opinion that there is no objection to a card not designed or used as an advertisement. Leases from building companies—Company’s solicitor acting for lessee O n a complaint made by a client to the Society the Council expressed the following opinion—

(a) It is undesirable that a solicitor who has an interest in a building company should act for lessees from the Company; ( b ) The Council was asked to say whether a solicitor who has an interest in a building company and obtains instructions from clients introduced by the company is guilty o f touting or improperly soliciting business. In the opinion o f the Council the answer to this question depends on the circumstances. I f the solicitor has a small or nominal interest in the company, the fact that he acts for lessees introduced by the company will not raise the presumption that he is soliciting business. If, however, the solicitor has a large or controlling interest as owner, shareholder, or partner, and habitually acts for lessees from the company such action might prima fade raise a presumption of touting, but this would depend upon the facts proved if the case were brought before the Statutory Committee., Registration o f English and Scottish Grants by limited companies M embers act for companies incorporated in the Republic o f Ireland who have English shareholders. In the past where the holding of a deceased English shareholder was the sole asset in Ireland they advised the company to register an English or Scottish grant, accompanied by a letter from the Revenue Commissioners stating that no duty was payable. Following the raising of the level of exemption from death duties from £100 to £2,000, they ask for the opinion o f the Council as to whether a solicitor for a company should advise his clients to register an English or Scottish grant where the property does not exceed £2,000 in value, and the Estate Duty Office certifies that no duties are payable. The Council decided to reply that the advice which a solicitor gives to a client must depend upon the facts in each case and the solicitor’s judgment on those facts. In the past it has been customary for companies, presumably acting on their solicitors’ advice, to accept and register English and Scottish grants where the total value of the property in the country was trivial and no death duties were payable. It is not, however, desirable, either in the interests of the public or o f the profession, that solicitors acting for companies should advise them to register foreign grants of probate or administration except in cases where the value of the assets in the Republic is trivial. Apart from the question of death duties the law of wills and intestate succession is not identical in Ireland, England, and Scotland. In the opinion o f the Council where there is any substantial property in this country the will or intestacy should be proved- 61