The Gazette 1958-61

Libel— £105 damages—High Court Costs. In an action for damages for libel brought by Claude Hamilton and John Mills against Beaver- brook Newspapers, Ltd., damages were claimed for an alleged libel in the Irish edition of the Daily Express under the heading " writ out for absent car dealers". The jury awarded £105, damages with costs and counsel for the defendants submitted that only Circuit Court Costs should be awarded. Teevan J. held that the plaintiff's solicitor acted reasonably in bringing the action in the High Court. He said that he was not sure that the bringing of the actions was not also a matter of public importance having regard to the activities of certain categories of the press in the nature of the news items which they collected and published to an extremely wide circle of readers. Having regard to the fact that the actions were tried together he thought however, that the defendants were entitled to some relief on that account. (Hamilton and another v. Beaverbrook News papers, Ltd., unreported—i5th March, 1960.) SOLICITORS' OPERATING EXPENSES A special committee of the Council has been set up to investigate ways and means of reducing solicitors' office expenses. The committee have wide terms of reference and are authorised to examine and report upon any proposal or suggestion which would enable solicitors to operate their offices more economically. The cost of running an office has risen steeply in the past twenty years and the matter is receiving serious attention by the Council in the interests of the profession and its clients. In so far as the difficulty is caused by the steady increase in the cost of living figure and overhead expenses such as rates and taxes the solution is not under the control of the profession itself. It is, however, obvious that there are a number of outmoded practices and procedures in solicitors' offices and in their dealings with other offices and Government and Court departments which could be discontinued or improved with a view to saving expense. The committee will consider the matter under the following headings : 1. Improvements which could be effected by changes in the internal organisation of solicitors' offices and by cooperation among practitioners. 2. Improvements in the procedure of Government and Court offices with a view to saving time and effort by solicitors and their staffs. The following are examples of the kind of proposals which might be considered under head i : The simplification of the system of drawing and

and damage, (&) he was entitled to his costs after date of lodgment relating exclusively to the issue of negligence. This meant that he was not entitled to the costs of instructions for brief or attendance on counsel or the costs of witnesses which might relate to the mixed issues of damages and negligence, (f) the defendant being entitled to the costs of the action from date of lodgment against the plaintiff would be entitled to costs of briefs and witnesses relating to the mixed issues of damages and negligence but in this case the costs would be apportioned and the Taxing Masters would certify for such part of the costs as related to negligence only to be set off against the plaintiff's costs. To many it will appear that this is a rather artificial distinction and that in equity at least the plaintiff ought to be entitled to the apportioned costs of the contested issue of negligence down to date of judgment. It is, however, covered by authority and on the form of the order usually made in such matters the plaintiff who fails to beat the lodgment will apparently receive no costs in respect of any items which do not relate exclusively to the contested issue and the Taxing Masters have no power to apportion. Adjournment by District Justice, whether amounting to refusal ofjurisdiction. On the hearing of a prosecution for alleged Customs offences it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the offence of knowingly dealing in butter the importation of which is prohibited by law is a criminal charge entitling the defendant to a trial by judge and jury. The District Justice adjourned these cases with thirty-three others pending the result of an action by another defendant in the High Court who contended that he was entitled to trial by judge and jury. An application by the Attorney General to the High Court for an order of mandamus directing the District Justice to proceed with the hearing was granted without any order as to costs. On an appeal by the defendant to the Supreme Court the order of mandamus was set aside. In their judgment the Court stated that it was proper for the District Justice to take notice of the fact that proceedings were pending which properly raised the question of the validity of the law which he was called upon to enforce. In the view which the Court took the District Justice was entitled to adjourn the summonses pending the determination of the action of another defendant in the High Court. (State (Deaton) v. District Justice Mangan, un- reported. Judgment of Supreme Court—3rd March, 1960.)