The Gazette 1949-1952

Assistant Solicitors—Unemployment Insu­ rance and National Health contributions T he Council considered a report from a Committee in connection with a claim by the Department of Social Welfare against a solicitor for arrears of contributions in respect o f an assistant solicitor, employed in his office. The solicitor appealed to the Minister on the ground that the assistant solicitor was employed under a contract for services, and not under a contract o f service, and was therefore exempt from the obligation to make contributions. On 13 th October, 1949, the Minister decided that the employment of the assistant solicitor was under a contract for service and that he was an employed person within the meaning o f the Act. The employer instituted proceedings against the Minister for Social Welfare by way of originating summary summons for a declaration that the assistant solicitor is not an employed person. The summons is returnable for 1st November, 1950. The Council decided to postpone further consideration of the matter pending further information as to the position under the recent White Paper on Social Security. Solicitor’s Undertaking T he Council considered a report from a Committee on agreed facts. Mr. A ., Solicitor, was instructed by Mr. B. to take up the latter’s papers from Mr. C., Solicitor. Mr. C. had acted for Mr. B. in connection with the release of a mortgage. The release had been lodged in the Land Registry, but registration had not been completed. Mr. A. wrote Mr. C. as follows :— “ I understand that you recently acted for Mr. B. in connection with having a burden on the folio cancelled. He is about to offer the lands for sale, and he has instructed me to act for him. In the circumstances, I would be obliged if you will please let me have particu­ lars of any costs due to you in connection with the work which you did, and I will arrange for payment. You might also let me know if the release has been registered.” Mr. C. replied stating that the release had been lodged in the Land Registry. A question arose as to whether Mr. A .’s letter constituted a personal undertaking to pay Mr. C.’s costs. The Council express the following opinion :— 1. There was no consideration which would support a personal undertaking by Mr. A. 2. Mr. C.’s position was not altered by Mr. A .’s letter.

3. Mr. A .’s letter meant that on receipt of Mr. C.’s costs he would submit them to Mr. B. for payment, but the letter did not constitute a personal undertaking. F eiiruary 2 nd . The President in the Chair. Also present: Messrs. T. A. O’Reilly, Vice-President; P. R. Boyd, Reginald J. Nolan, John J. Nash, John R. Halpin, James J. O’Connor, Joseph Barrett, Gerald O ’Donnell, W. S. Hayes, Daniel O’Connell, Desmond Mayne, James R. Quirke, John Carrigan, Sean O hUadhaigh, Patrick F. O’Reilly, Derrick Martin, Roger Greene, D. R. Counahan, A. Cox, William L. Duggan. ., The following .was among the business transacted:— Solicitors to Local Authorities T he Council considered a letter from the Department of Local Government referring to the memorandum submitted by the Council on the subject of the salary attaching to the position o f whole-time solicitor to a Local Authority, and •the Secretary was directed to reply. A copy o f the correspondence is printed below at page 47. Costs Query C ertain land was vested by vesting, order in the name o f the tenant, but he was not registered as owner and no folio was opened in the Land Registry. The holding was sold for £2,920 and the redemption value o f the lands equivalent to the standard purchase annuity was £306. The land was conveyed by an ordinary conveyance, and not by Land Registry transfer. By direction o f the Land Commission the conveyance was sent to the Land Registry, with Form No. 17, and the usual Land Registry fees, and the scheduled number under which the matter was being dealt with in the Land Registry, was quoted. The Council was asked whether, in their opinion, the costs o f the sale should be charged under the Land Registry scale, or under the Solicitors’ Remuneration General Order, 1884-1947, and whether the costs should be calculated on the purchase price, £2,920 plus £306. The Council expressed the following opinion :— 1. Having regard to Section 17 (4) o f the Land Act, 1927, the land became registered land on the appointed day, although on that day no folio had been opened in the Land Registry. 2. The costs should be charged under the Land Registration Rules calculated upon the amount o f the consideration plus the redemption value o f the land purchase annuity. 46