The Gazette 1952-1955

SOLICITORS’ REMUNERATION GENERAL ORDER, 19 5 1 Sales under the Land Clauses Acts. R ule i i , Schedule I, Part I, of the Solicitors’ Remuneration General Order 1884, provided that in cases of sales under the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts or any other private or public act under which the vendor’s charges are paid by the pur­ chaser the scale shall not apply. This meant that in cases to which the rule applied the solicilor’s charges were drawn in detail instead o f on the com­ mission scale. In general it was to the advantage of the solicitor to charge in detail in cases where the purchase money was small. Where the purchase money was substantial it was more profitable to charge the commission scale fee. Rule 1 1 , Schedule I, Part I o f the Solicitors’ Remuneration General Order, 1884 (printed at page 426 of the 1953 Calendar and Law Directory) was rescinded by Rule III of the Solicitors’ Remuneration General Order, 1951, printed at page 434 of the 1953 Calendar and Law Directory, in the case o f business completed on or after 1st January, 1952. Inquiries have been re­ ceived from members as to the effect of the rescission o f Rule 1 1 , in the case o f small plots which are acquired under the provisions of the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts. The attention o f members is drawn to paragraph 6 of the Solicitors’ Remunera­ tion General Order, 1884 (Calendar and Law Directory, 1953, page 423), which provides as follows:—-“ In all cases to which the scales pre­ scribed in Schedule I hereto shall apply, a solicitor may, before undertaking any business, by writing under his hand, communicated to the client, elect that his remuneration shall be according to the present system as altered by Schedule II hereto ; but, if no such election shall be made, his remunera­ tion shall be according to the scale prescribed by this Order.” A solicitor acting for a body acquiring land under the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts may, by giving to the client the notice prescribed by paragraph 6, elect that his costs shall be charged in detail. A solicitor acting for an owner whose lands are being acquired may elect in the same way by giving similar notice to the client. In either case the notice must be given before any business is undertaken. When acting for a client whose lands are being acquired a solicitor wishing to elect under Rule 6, may also consider it advisable to give notice to the acquiring authority before undertaking any business. STAMP DUTIES T he following letter has been received from the Revenue Commissioners in reply to the memoran- 8

and found that in that case the charges o f the solicitors were much less. He therefore took out an originating summons asking that the bill should be referred for taxation or, alternatively, that the respondent’s firm should be ordered to deliver a detailed bill of their charges under article i of the Solicitors’ Remuneration (Gross Sum) Order, 1934. Mr. Justice Vaisey held that the delivery of the bill for £735 was a charge within the meaning of the proviso to that paragraph, and as the applicant had not required the delivery of a detailed bill within the time allowed by the proviso he was out o f time and the summons must be dismissed. The client appealed. Mr.. Co2ens-Hardy appeared for the appellant; Mr. J. P. Hunter-Brown for the solicitor. The Solicitors’ Remuneration (Gross Sum) Order, 1934, made in pursuance of section 56 (1) of the Solicitors Act, 1932, provides : “ Without prejudice to the power possessed by the Court under the Solicitors Act, 1932, . . . the remuneration o f a solicitor . . . may at the option of the solicitor be by a gross sum in lieu o f a detailed charges : Provided that within six months after delivery of a charge made under this order . . . the client may require that a detailed bill of charges shall be delivered and the solicitor shall thereupon comply with the requisition, and any bill so delivered shall be subject to taxation . . . ” The Mast r o f the Rolls said that £735 was in tact considerably less than the solicitors might legally have charged.' He expressed no opinion on the point argued before Mr. Justice Vaisey because, in this Court, another point had been taken which s emed to him conclusive. The case was governed by the order of 1934, and that order dealt only with the remuneration of the solicitor as distinct from any disbursements made by him. The order did not authorise the charging of a lump sum to cover both professional services and disbursements and the charge of £735 was therefore not within it. The position was that no bill had ever been delivered, and the client was now entitled to call for a detailed bill if the Court, in its discretion, saw fit to allow him to do so. That discretion must be exercised in view of the facts of the particular case, and here he had not, in any way, by his conduct lost the right to call for a proper bill. The appeal must be allowed, and an order made for the delivery of a detailed bill as required. Lord Justice Birkett and Lord Justice Romer agreed. (In re a Solicitor. The Times, 1st May, 1953).