The Gazette 1949-1952

from 30. The following is an analysis of the replies to questions submitted :— Replies (a) Are you in favour of the recummen-'] dation by the Council of a uniform | scale o f costs for use by solicitors | acting for local authorities on the completion o f mortgages tosecure | advances made under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts ? J ( b ) Are you opposed to any reduction in \ Yes— 6 the full scale fee for such work ? f No —22 (c) Should any scale recommended b e j related to the volume of work I Yes— 2 handled by. the Solicitor in a single j N o—28 year ? J (d) Are you in favour o f a uniform scale J of i i% suggested by the Department ) A es 15 of Local Government ? J I4 It was decided that a letter should be written by the Secretary to the interested solicitors, explaining the present position and the result o f the replies to the circular, asking them to convene a meeting in Dublin to discuss the matter with a view to giving the Council the necessary authority to discuss, and if possible agree, a scale with the Department o f Local Government. Land Registry Costs A draft application to the Land Registration Rules Committee for an increase in the commission scale fee and other amendments to the rules relating to costs was considered and adopted. Representatives were appointed to attend before the Committee on the hearing of the application. es—2 9 1 DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST In an action for personal injuries the defendant delays serving his defence on the ground that the plaintiff resident in the country has refused to submit to a medical examination unless the defendant undertakes to pay the expenses of his personal medical attendant of travelling to Dublin with him. Is the plaintiff entitled tojudgment in default of defence ? No. In O’Keeffe v. Rogers, not yet reported, after a plenary summons had been served and an appearance entered, the solicitors for the defendant requested that the plaintiff who resided in Ballinasloe should attend for examination by the defendant’s surgeon in Dublin. The defendant’s solicitors undertook to pay the costs o f conveying the plaintiff to Dublin and the fee o f a Dublin surgeon of the

defendant’s choice for attending the medical examina­ tion. The plaintiff’s solicitor declined to comply with this request, and stated that the plaintiff would attend for examination only on condition that his personal doctor accompanied him, and that the defendant would pay the sum o f 25 guineas being the amount o f his Doctor’ s fee. The defendant insisted on his original proposal and declined to deliver a defence until it was complied with. On the hearing o f a motion for judgment in default o f defence, it was contended for the plaintiff that he was entitled, as a condition o f submitting himself for medical examination, to insist on the presence o f his personal medical attendant. It was sub­ mitted by the defendant that the plaintiff could not reasonably require more than the attendance o f a Dublin practitioner to be chosen by himself. Casey J. held that the defendant had acted reasonably and stated that, although he could not compel the plaintiff to submit himself to a medical examination, he could protect the defendant from the plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct. He refused the motion for judgment, allowed the defendant 21 days to file his defence, the costs to be part of the costs in the cause. (Irish Law Times and Solicitors'’ Journal, 10th November, 1951). Where a solicitor's name has been struck off the roll by order of the Chief Justice on a report made by the Statutory Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct, can proceedings be successfully brought after­ wards against him on a petition under the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1849, claiming an order directing himtofurnish a bill ofcosts andan account ofmoneys of the petitioner in his hands and to hand over to the petitioner documents in his possession ? Yes. In an unreported case before Mr. Justice Budd at the beginning o f Hilary Term he held that the rule was, “ Once an Attorney always an Attorney ” for the purpose o f an application under Section 2 o f the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1849. The Solicitor’s name had been struck off the roll pursuant to an order o f the Chief J ustice made on the n th December, 195!, and the pedtion claiming an account and delivery o f documents was filed on 1 5th December, 1951. It was suggested at the hearing of the petidon that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order sought, in as much as Section 2 o f the Act o f 1849 deals only with “ an attorney or solicitor, or any executor, administrator or assignee o f any attorney or solicitor ” and does not deal expressly with the case o f an ex^solicitor. The only authority bearing on the case was Simes v. Gibbs (6 Dowl. 310), decided in 1838, in which an ex-attorney named