The Gazette 1952-1955

O’Byrne, Crown Solicitor, Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia, has been removed from the Roll at his own request to enable him to seek call to the Bar.

registered abroad, in holding land In the United K in gd om , i f it follow ed the procedure laid down in that A ct. I am not aware h ow many properties these two companies had, or when they came to acquire them. B u t w h y they had done so gave rise to some interesting speculations which had been put before the Court. One was that i f the Company had not a place o f business in this country, it was rather difficult to serve them w ith notices under the H ou sing o r any other A c t s ; It m ight also be that w ithout a registered place o f business in this country, the collection o f rates b y the local authority would be made more difficult in the case o f housing property such as th is.” Per D enning L . J . :— “ In order that land may be caught b y Section 1 o f the Mortmain A c t, 1888, it must be assured o r transferred o r leased to a corporation in Mortmain, in other w o rd s, when land was transferred to a corporation, the theory was that it ceased to render its dues, services and fees to its lord from that time forw ard , and, being thus in the hands o f a dead hand, was liable to be forfeited to the K i n g ; the A ct o f 1888 had specifi­ cally included leases o f under 99 years as com ing w ithin these terms. In this particular case, they had a modem instance o f a real dead hand, fo r here was a foreign corporation which pu t itself in the position i f not to defeat entirely, at least to render it most difficult, fo r the dues which it ough t to render to be rendered. It made it difficult either fo r the tenant here to recover on the covenants which the landlord made, fo r the rating authority to obtain rates, o r fo r the housing authority to see that the houses w ere kept in p roper condition and possibly even fo r the Revenue authorities to obtain taxes. (Morelle Ltd . v. W aterw o rth ; Rodnal Ltd . v. Ludb rok —The Times, 17 th Ju n e , 1954). I f the plaintiff’s solicitor is ignorant of a time limit of 6 monthsfrom the date of the grant in which application under the Inheritance (Family Provision) A ct, 1938, should be made by a widow fo r further provision to be made to her, has the Court power to extend the time limit ? No, said Roxburgh J., because the solicitor’s mis­ take was not a circumstance affecting the administra­ tion or distribution o f the Estate. Per Roxburgh J. :—“ In my judgment, if, in the present case, it is unfair to hold the plaintiff to the prescribed time, it is so in consequence o f the mistake o f her solicitors, and for no other reason.” (Re Greaves deceased: Greaves v. Greaves (1954) I W.L.R. 760). 24

DISTRICT COURT COSTS S ince the passing o f the Courts o f Justice Bill, 1953, extending the jurisdiction o f the District Court, there has been no scale of party and party costs for District Court Civil Bills falling within the extended jurisdiction. The Council have been continually pressing the responsible authorities to sanction new scales but so far this has not been done. The Council understand that the matter is at present the subject o f communications between the Department of Justice and the District Court Rules Committee. A client who instructs a solicitor to institute proceedings in the District Court is liable to the solicitor for the costs incurred as between solicitor and client and the party and party costs awarded by a District Justice under Rules of Court are in the nature o f an indemnity to the client against part o f his solicitor and client costs. There is at present no indemnity owing to the absence o f Rules o f Court prescribing new scales o f party and party costs for the extended jurisdiction. In these circumstances the Council have thought it appropriate where the subject matter o f an action falls within the extended juris­ diction to advise members to consider instituting proceedings in the Circuit Court having regard to the fact that a successful plaintiff or defendant as the case may be in the District Court may receive no party and party costs, or may receive costs on an inadequate scale. The Circuit Judge has juris­ diction under Order 58, Rules 14 and 27 to award party and party costs on the Circuit Court scale in such cases, and, in tbe view o f the Council, the absence o f any party and party scale in the District Court is a special circumstance within the meaning o f Order 58, Rule 14. It is suggested that applica­ tions should be made to the Circuit Judge under these Rules. RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS. Can a company registered in the Republic o f Ireland recover possession of leaseholdpremises in "England without having first obtained a licence in Mortmain to acquire or hold the property ? No, said the Court o f Appeal (Singleton, Denning and Morris L .J.J.). Per Singleton L .J. :—“ There was no difficulty in the way o f a company, whether registered under the Companies Act, 1948, or