The Gazette 1952-1955

V ariation O rders

The adoption o f the report was seconded by Mr. Joseph Barrett, President of the Incorporated Law Society, and passed unanimously. The existing Directors were re-appointed and Messrs. H. D. Hurley and Terence de Vere White were reappointed as honorary auditors. On the motion o f Mr. C. J. Gore Grimes, a vote of thanks to the Press was passed and on the motion o f Mr. H. P. Mayne, Vice- Chairman, the meedng passed a vote o f thanks to Mr. O’Brien for his conduct o f the meeting and his services to the Association.

Outlay. Costs.

Totals.

Where Variation s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Order granted: ... io o 2 o o 2 10 o Add 2s 6d. for each extra defendant. These costs have come into effect as and from 1 st February, 1954. Dublin County Council ; Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. B y agreement with the Law Agent of the Dublin County Council, it has now been arranged that instructions which have heretofore been embodied in the Requisitions issued in cases arising under the Small Dwellings Act and heretofore numbered 1, 2, 3 ( a ) and ( b ) will be omitted. Counsel fo r the plaintiff and defendant respectively in a matrimonial suit discussed terms o f settlement before the trial with the consent and authority o f the parties and their solicitors. The recognised channel o f communication o f any agreement reached was through the solicitors to the client. Counsel reached agreement as to the terms o f consent which would be made a rule o f Court, and the terms were endorsed on counsel’s briefs. Counsel fo r the defendant informed his solicitor on the telephone o f the terms o f the consent, and the solicitor informed the defendant. Through some defect, either in Counsel’s communication to the solicitor or in the solicitor’s hearing or understanding o f it, the terms o f the consent communi­ cated to the defendant were not those endorsed on Counsel’s briefs, and this fa c t did not become apparent until some time after the consent had been made a rule o f Court. The defendant then repudiated it. The term o f the consent so repudiated by the defendant was that the wife should be entitled to alimony, not as is usual during the join t lives o f the parties, but fo r her life even i f she survived the husband and that the alimony should be secured by a charge on his property. Was the defendant bound by the terms o f the consent ? No, it was held by Kingsmill Moore, J ., that on the authorities counsel in the exercise of his .discretion, may without express authority from the client and even against the client’s instructions bind the client by a compromise where the restriction on counsel’s apparent and implied authority have not been communicated to the other side. (Swinfen v. Swinfen 25 L .J.C .P . 303 ; Strauss v. Francis L.R . 1 Q.B. 379 ; Gethings and Another v. Cioney 48 I.L.T .R . 53). This is not restricted to a qomptomise 8 DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST.

PRACTICE NOTE. Exhibits in Affidavits.

I n the High Court recently, Mr. Justice Dixon drew the attention o f solicitors to the necessity of properly identifying documents exhibited in affidavits and said that this was particularly necessary when a bundle o f correspondence was exhibited. In the latter case the correspondence should be identified as far as possible, e.g. by setting out in a schedule the dates o f the letters and the parties thereto. If identification in some such way is not feasible, the only alternative is to exhibit the letters separately. His Lordship remarked that it is irregular and improper to exhibit a group o f letters not fully identified. DUBLIN SOLICITORS’ BAR ASSOCIATION. Costs under the Enforcement o f Court Orders Acts. F ollowing discussions between a deputation o f the Association and District Justice Fitzpatrick, the following scale o f costs has been agreed upon in matters arising under the Enforcement o f Court Orders Acts :— I nstalment O rders Outlay. Costs. Totals. s. d. £ S. d. £ s. d. Not exceeding £5 15 0 I I 0 I 16 0 3 3 £ ^ 5 D 0 I I I 6 2 6 6 3 3 3 3 £25 D 0 2 2 0 2 17 0 „ ,3 £50 D 0 3 3 0 3 18 0 Exceeding £30 D 0 4 4 0 4 O 0 Add 6/- to above for each extra Defendant. C ommittal O rders Where Committal Order s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. granted: ... 9 6 2 0 0 2 9 6