The Gazette 1964/67

however, that the General Order required that in a particularised bill the items should be separately listed and priced under items 2 to 20 of the schedule and that the instructions fee should be shown separately. Any particular items of work which cannot be allocated to items 2 to 20 would be shown under item 21 (J. H. Walshe & Co. v. Greenmount Oil Co. Ltd. and Le Brocquy). Costs. Review of taxation. Debenture. Appeal on quantum. In a solicitor and own client bill relating inter alia to a debenture securing a sum of £3,900,000 in which no lands were involved a sum of £3,673 was charged for instructions on the basis of one quarter of the scale fee of a mortgage for the same amount. The Taxing Master allowed 1,500 gns. After a review of the bill the Taxing Master in his report referring to item i of schedule II stated that he regarded clauses (a), (b~) and (c) germane. These relate to (a) the complexity, importance, difficulty, rarity of the questions raised (b) where money or property is involved its amount or value and (c} the importance of the matter to the client. The Taxing Master did not specifically refer in his report to clauses (d) to (g) of item i which have more direct application to the amount of work done and time expended thereon. Budd, J. on an appeal from the Taxing Masters found that the report afforded a ground of objection to the principles applied to the taxation since it appeared therefrom that the taxing master had regard only to some of the matters enumerated in item i and the matter was referred back so that the taxing master should have regard to each of the clauses in the item. A further question raised before the Court as to whether it was now open to the Court to consider an appeal on a pure question of quantum by reason of the word amount in order 99 rule 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962 was not decided. (Whitney Moore and Keller v. Shipping Finance Corporation Ltd.). Damages—Delay Between Accident and Trial The plaintiff claimed damages from his employers for injuries suffered in an accident at work in December, 1959. Held : that the plaintiff had not made his case. Per curiam : It is not right and fair, and makes the Court's task an almost impossible one, that more than four years should elapse between the accident and the trial. For every moment that elapse between memory gets weaker and imagination stronger: (The Times, March I4th, 1964, Paull J.). Medical Partnership—Dissolution. (Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vie. C 39) 8.26). In 1948, two doctors A and F entered into partner-

38 Ashe Street, Listowel, Co. Kerry; James J. Nestor, Dunmore, Co. Galway; William F. O'Driscoll, B.C.L., Bandon, Co. Cork; Michael V. O'Mahony, B.C.L., LL.B., (N.U.I.), 62 Stiles Road, Clontarf, Dublin (Silver Medal) ; Niall P. O'Neill, Ard Caein, Naas, Co. Kildare; David W. Prentice, 96 Granite Field Estate, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin ; Edmond M. Veale, B.C.L., (N.U.I.) 30 St. Kevins Park, Dartry, Dublin. ROAD TRAFFIC ACTS 1933 AND 1961 Copies of the Department of Local Government circular relative to the above may be obtained from the Department; they contain a statement of the provisions of the law of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 and the Orders, Regulations, Byelaws and rules made thereunder which are now in force; particulars of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1933 and certain other enactments which have been repealed by the 1961 Act, and particulars of Orders etc., made under the 1933 Act which is still in force. The statement covers the position as at ist April, 1964 and supersedes all previous statements issued by the Department on the subject. CASES OF THE MONTH Costs Itemised Bill. In a recent unreported decision of Kenny J. in the High Court the plaintiffs on a special summons were the solicitors for a limited company and the defend– ants were the company. The solicitors sought a direction remitting a solicitor and own client bill for taxation, the clients having refused to sign the requisition to tax. The charges related to business done in connection with a number of take over agreements and the bill was drawn at £2,600. The first bill submitted was a lump sum bill for this amount and the clients required particulars under clause 6 of the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1960. In the particulars submitted all the work done was summarised under the heading of instructions running to over 100 pages and the last six pages of the bill comprised itemised charges amounting to a sum of between £300 and £400. Kenny, J. held that the system of solicitors' remuner– ation for non-contentious business had been funda– mentally changed by the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1960. The instructions fee allowed the Taxing Master to give remuneration over and above the total of the itemised charges where having regard to the considerations enumerated in item i of the schedule he thought it reasonable to do so. His lordship stated that the charge of £i for the first hour of an attendance with 15 /- for each subsequent half hour might be grossly inadequate. He hel 1