The Gazette 1958-61

report stated that at the inquiry it was explained to the plaintiff that the purpose was to ascertain the cause of the accident with a view to safeguarding against future accidents, rather than to establish guilt. On appeal from the order of a master requiring the commission to produce the report for inspection by the plaintiff. Held by Diplock J. that:—(i) the claim of privilege was not established by the ground put forward in the affidavit, viz., that the documents including the report were made for the purposes inter alia of furnishing evidence or information to the solicitor, without stating that that was the main purpose, since privilege was not established by the mere fact that one of the purposes of a document, however improbable, might be to furnish evidence to the party's solicitor ; accordingly the court was entitled to and would look at the report itself. Per Diplock J.: in the Seabrook Case the affidavit claimed that the reports of which inspection was sought had been made by the defendants or their officers "after this litigation was in contemplation and in view of such litigation wholly or mainly for the purposes of obtaining for and furnishing to the solicitor of the defendants evidence and informa tion," etc. Havers, J., adjourned the matter into open court to deliver his judgment, of which I have a shorthand note, in which he considered in detail many of the authorities in the long string of authorities on this subject dating from some ninety odd years ago, and the decision is a valuable authority on this branch of the law of procedure. Although I am not bound by the judgment of another judge of nisi priiis I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with every word that Havers J. said in his judgment. That does not dispose of this case, because in that case there was an affidavit, which Havers J. accepted, that the documents were prepared wholly or mainly for the purpose of being furnished to the solicitor. In this case there is no such claim on affidavit and indeed there was a change from that claim, which was made in the list of documents, to a claim that the reports were prepared inter alia for the appropriate purpose. When I looked at the affidavit, and saw the des cription of " correspondence between and reports made by the defendants' officers and servants and correspondence between the defendants and their solicitor which came into existence after this claim was anticipated and for the purposes, inter alia, of obtaining and furnishing to the solicitor of the defendants evidence and information " it seemed to me that the description " Correspondence between and reports made " was too wide to assist me to say whether the nature of the documents was such

statement of claim was absolutely privileged, and the publication was made under the provisions and in accordance with the authority of the Solicitors Act, 1957, and the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceed ings) Rules, 1957. (Addis v. Crocker—(1959) 2 All E.R. 773.) Search fee. Solicitors to pay damages for witholding deeds. " A solicitor agreed at Boston County Court yesterday that there was no legal right to retain a client's deeds until a fee of two guineas was paid. ' It is the practice of solicitors, but apparently it is not the law,' he said. The solicitors were sued by Mr. J. G. Marshall, of Old Leake, Lincolnshire, for the return of the deeds of his farm and £5 damages for their retention. He was awarded £2 damages and costs. The solicitors were said to have told Mr. Marshall that he could have the deeds back on payment of the fee of two guineas. Mr. Edwin F. Jowitt (for Mr. Marshall) told Judge R. S. Shove that the deeds in question were in fact returned two days ago. Judge Shove : ' What right had they to retain the deeds after the costs of the conveyance had been paid ?' Mr. Jowitt: ' None, your honour.' " (Manchester Guardian, i4th August, 1959.) Privilege not allowed on a ground that document might furnish evidence to party's solicitor ; Court entitled to adjudicate. In March, 1955, shortly after an accident in respect of which the plaintiff brought this action for damages from the British Transport Commission, his employer, the commission held a private inquiry into the cause of the accident, in which the plaintiff took part. At the time of the inquiry, the commission did not know that the plaintiff intended to bring the action and first became aware of this from a letter dated July 5, 1955. The writ commencing the action was issued by the plaintiff on February 29, 1956. In a list of documents filed by the commission, the commission claimed privilege from production for inspection in respect of documents set out in the first schedule to the list, which included the report of the private inquiry, on the ground that the documents came into existence " wholly or mainly for the purpose of obtaining for and furnishing to the solicitor of the (commission) evidence and information for the use of the said solicitor " to enable him to conduct the defence or to advise the commission. Subsequently the commission filed an affidavit in which privilege was claimed on the ground that the documents came into existence " for the purposes, i'nter alia, of obtaining for and furnish ing evidence or information to the solicitor . , ." The