The Gazette 1949-1952

client costs subject to the proviso in Ord. 65 r. 27 (29) as to the disallowance of costs incurred' through over caution, negligence, mistake, etc. The state­ ment in •the Taxing Master’s report in Giles v. Randall ( 19 15 ,1 K .B . 290) that “ a solicitor and client taxation is substantially a party and party taxation on a more generous basis ” if approved by the Court, was merely an obiter dictum and is not binding. While the indemnity against an unsuccess­ ful opponent given by an order for taxation as between solicitor and client cannot be construed as an order for taxation as between solicitor and own client, it nevertheless enables the Taxing Master to increase the fees which would be allowed as between party and party and to allow fees which would be disallowed altogether as between party and party, subject to the limitation o f R.S. C. Ord. 05 r. 27 (29). (Reed v. Gray, 1952, I All E. R. 242). Where a country solicitor instituted proceedings in the High Court in which he acted for himself, employing. London Agents, was he entitled under an order against the defendant for costs as between solicitor and client to be allowed fees claimed for instructing the Agents and for their attendance on the Plaintiff? Yes. Although a solicitor cannot claim for consulting, instructing and attending on himself he can incur costs for such work performed by his Agents and. such costs are allowed. (Reed v. Gray, Supra). Is a married woman who does not follow a gainful occupation entitled to more than nominal expenses as a witness 1 Yes. Having regard to her absence from domestic duties the witness is entitled to more than the amount o f her disbursements and should receive more than a nominal sum. (Reed v. Gray, Supra). Where an unqualified person prepares an instrument relating to real or personal estate, which to be effective should be under seal but which is not, infact, sealed, is it a defence toproceedings under Section 44 of the Stamp Act, 1891, to say that the document is an agreement under hand only within the meaning of sub-section 2 of the Section ? No. The appellant, an estate agent, prepared for reward an instrument purporting to be an agreement under hand only for a lease of certain property for a term of 14 years. To be effective as a lease the document should have been under seal in accordance with English law. On being charged with an offence under the English Solicitors Act, 1932, Section 47 (1) which replaced Section 44 of the Stamp Act, 1891, the defendant contended that no offence had been committed as {a) the instrument 85

Humfrey was directed to hand over a bill of exchange on the ground that he could not get rid o f the summary jurisdiction o f the Court with respect to acts done while an attorney by ceasing to be one, Mr. Justice Budd following this decision made an order granting the relief claimed in the petition. {Irish Law Times and Solicitors’ Journal, ’and February, 1952). On the bankruptcy of a solicitor who maintained a number of banking accounts, one of which was an account for clients' moneys in accordance with the English Solicitors Act, 1933, Section 1, and the Solicitors’ Accounts ILules, 1945, is the trustee in bankruptcy entitled to receive the amount standing to credit of the clients’ moneys bank account.for payment to the general creditors ? No. In re a Solicitor (1951 M. No. 234) Roxburgh J. held that only property o f the bankrupt vests in the trustee. Accounts at banks for clients within the Solicitors Act, 1933, Section 1 are not accounts for solicitors’ moneys, nor mixed accounts o f solicitors’ and clients’ moneys. Such accounts are held by the bankrupt solicitor on trust for another person within the meaning o f the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, Section 38 (1) and accordingly do not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy. Where a successfulplaintiff is awarded costs against the defendant as between solicitor and client what is the test to be applied by the Taxing Master in ascertaining the costs which should be allowed, as distinguishedfrom those which would be allowed on the ordinary taxation of costs as between party and party. The rule applicable is R.S.C. Ord. 65, r. 27 (29)* which provides as follows :—“ On every taxation the Taxing Master shall allow all such costs, charges and expenses as shall appear to him to have been necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or defending the rights o f any party, but, save as against the party who incurred the same, no costs shall be allowed which appear to the Taxing Master to have been incurred or increased through over caution, negligence, or mistake, or by the payment o f special fees to Counsel or special chafges or expenses to witnesses or other persons, or other unusual expenses.” Costs payable by one party to another may be directed to be taxed (a) as between party and party ; ( b ) as between solicitor and client; (r) as between solicitor and own client. The latter- order gives the successful litigant a complete indemnity against his opponent in respect of all costs which the successful litigant is liable to pay to his own solicitor. Order (£) gives the successful litigant an indemnity in respect of his solicitor and

*N.B., Cf. R.S.C. (If.) 1905, D.LXV. r. 65 (28) (29).