The Gazette 1909-10

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland,

[JANUARY, 1910

72

Solicitors' Annual Certificates, MEMBERS are reminded that annual Certifi cates for year ending 5th January, 1911, | should be taken put, and the duties paid : thereon, between the 5th clay of January and the 6th day of February, 1910. Calendar of Incorporated Law Society, 1910 THE Calendar and Law Directory, published by the Society, for 1910. can be obtained in the Secretary's office, price three shillings, or by post three shillings and fourpence. Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors. (Notes of decisions, whether in reported or nnreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are invited from Members.) COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND). (Before Vaughan Williams, Buckley, and Kennedy, L.JJ.) Reynolds v. Reynolds. Nov. 26, 1909.— Solicitor — Costs — Com promise of action without intervention of Solicitor. THE plaintiff brought an action to recover £400, the balance due under a building contract. Shortly before the action was expected to be in the paper for trial by an Official Referee, the plaintiff and defendant had an interview, the only other person present being the defendant's secretary, at which, in spite of a written protest on the part of the plaintiff's Solicitor, they settled the action on certain terms, including the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of £200 in discharge of all claims, including costs. The defendant gave the plaintiff a crossed cheque to order for £180, drawn on a country bank, and the plaintiff, who was an undischarged bankrupt, immediately endorsed it to one of his sons. On hearing of this the plaintiff's solicitor requested the defendant to stop payment of the cheque, but the defendant refused to do so. There upon, on an application by the plaintiff's Solicitor, the Official Referee made an order that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's Solicitor his costs on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant had settled the action behind the back of the plaintiff's Solicitor, knowing and intending that the settlement

would have

the effect of depriving

the

Solicitor of his costs. Held, that there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant intended the plaintiff's Solicitor to lose his costs. This was an appeal from an order of the Divisional Court (Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Bucknill) reversing an order of the Official Referee. The Official Referee ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's Solicitor his costs on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant had compromised and settled the action behind the back of the plaintiff's Solicitor, knowing and intending that the compromise and settlement would have the effect of depriving the Solicitor of his costs, or part of them. The action which, was ordered to be tried before the Official Referee, was brought by a builder to recover £400, the balance clue under a building contract. The plaintiff and the defendant, though of the same name, were not related to one another. On March 10, when the action was expected -to be in the paper in three or four weeks' time, the plaintiff and the defendant had an interview, the only other person being present being the defen dant's secretary, at which, in spite of a written protest on the part of the plaintiff's Solicitor, they settled the action on certain terms, including the payment by the defen dant to the plaintiff of £200 in discharge of all claims, including costs. In pursuance of this settlement the defendant gave the plaintiff a crossed cheque to order for £180, drawn on a country bank, and the plaintiff, who was an undischarged bankrupt, im mediately endorsed it to one of his sons. The plaintiff's Solicitor, on hearing of this, requested the defendant to stop payment of the cheque, but the defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff's Solicitor then obtained the above order from the Official Referee, which, however, was set aside by the Divisional Court. The plaintiff's Solicitor appealed. Mr. J. A. Foote, K.C., and Mr. Frank Newbolt appeared for the appellant; and Mr. Atkin, K.C., and Mr. H. L. Tebbs for the respondent. The Court dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said that in his judgment this appeal must be