The Gazette 1952-1955

What matters should be taken into consideration by the Revenue Commissioners in valuingfo r death duty purposes unquoted shares in a private limited company ? The Company which traded in its own ships with West Africa had in practice for over thirty years limited its ordinary dividend to 5% in order to build up reserves. Trading profits greatly increased during the Second World War, but the Company was unable to build up reserves to the same extent owing to heavy taxation. The Commissioners valued the shares at 34/- each and offered to accept 25/- each at the hearing. The executors maintained that the value o f the shares was only i7/ad. The Court held that the shares should be valued at 19/-. In accordance with Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Crossman (1937 A.C. 26), a clause in the articles requiring a shareholder to sell his holding at a fair valuation ascertainable in accordance with the articles should be disregarded. Under section 7 (5) o f the Finance Act 1894, the value of the shares should be that which a hypothetical purchaser would pay on a hypothetical sale in the open market at the date o f the death without knowledge o f after events. On the evidence, the Commissioners had over­ estimated the future prospects o f an increased dividend, and underestimated the fluctuating nature of West African trade and the difficulty in building up reserves. (Holt deceased. Holt v. Inland Revenue Commissioners. 1953 1 W.L.R. 1488). See also a recent unreported Irish case in connec­ tion with the shares o f the Convoy Woollen Mills. Where the defendants exercise a statutory right to have an action transferred from an inferior Court to the High Court, and the damages awarded are within thejurisdiction o f the inferior Court are the plaintiff’s party and party costs to be taxed on the scale applying in the inferior Court, or on the High Court scale under a statutory provision similar to Order XXVIII, r. 2 o f the Rules o f the High Court and Supreme Court, 1926 ? It was held that the action was not an action commenced in the High Court within the meaning o f section 47 o f the County Courts Act, 1937 but was an action commenced in the County Court. Section 47 referred to therefore, did not apply so as to disentitle the plaintiff to High Court costs. The Court had a complete discretion as to costs. (Turner v. Jacaranda Clubs Ltd., 19 5 3 ,1 W.L.R. 961). RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE. Adoption Act (England) 1950 ( S .J., 27th February, 1954 )- Admissability in evidence o f Statements made to 79

effected during the actual conduct o f a case in Court (Neale v. Lady Gordon Lennox (1902) 1 K .B . 838 ; (1902) A.C. 465). But Counsel’s apparent authority is not unbounded. He may not without express authority effect a compromise which involves matters collateral to the action. The action in the present case was for judicial separation and the provision for alimony during the wife’s life and for charging it on the husband’s property were collateral matters. The client, who was ignorant o f the agreement made between counsel on these issues, was not bound by the compromise. (Gordon v. Gordon, 88 I. L .T .R . 6). Is a solicitor's signature by means o f a rubber stamp a valid signature on a bill o f costs ? Yes, by a majority decision o f the English Court o f Appeal. The Master o f the Rolls said that he agreed with the view o f the County Court Judge that the bill was properly delivered under section 65 (2) o f the Solicitors’ Act 1932 which provides that a solicitor’s bill o f costs must be signed by the solicitor, or if the costs are due to a firm, one of the partners o f that firm either in his own name or in the name o f the firm, or be enclosed in, or accompanied by, a letter which is so signed, and refers to the bill. Had the matter been free from authority his Lordship would have thought that when the Act required that the “ bill should be signed by a solicitor ” he should personally sign it with his own hand by a pen or pencil. On the authorities, however, it must be taken as established that where an Act o f Parliament required that a document should be signed by a person, then prima facie the Act was satisfied i f the person himself placed on the document an engraved representation o f his signature by means o f a rubber stamp. His Lordship expressed no view on the question whether the same result would follow if the signature was not a facsimile representation o f the solicitor’s hand­ writing, but a mere printed representation o f his name. His Lordship also held that the affixing of the name o f the firm “ Goodman, Monroe & Co.” was a sufficient signature without the addition of the name o f the solicitor who was the sole owner o f the firm. Romer, L .J., concurred. Denning, L .J., dissented holding that it had been decided in Grayson v. Atkinson (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 454) that putting on a seal is not sufficient signing and that a fortiori rubber stamping was insufficient. Having regard to Section 2 o f the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ir.) Act 1849, which requires that the bill be “ subscribed with the proper hand ” o f the attorney, this case must be regarded with reservations. (Goodman v. J. Eban Ltd., The Times Newspaper, 6th March 195 4 ) • .....................