The Gazette 1964/67

The appeal should be dismissed. Danckwerts & Winn L.JJ. agreed.

an unqualified person was not prohibited from making an application under the Land Registration Acts unless the application could be fairly properly described as an application for registration, and an application for an official search or office copies were not applications for registration (Section 58 of the Solicitors Act, 1954 places a restriction on the drawing of documents and were defined in sub section (4) of that Section. The section of the Irish Act states that it applies to the following Acts :— The drawing or preparing of a document relating to real or personal estate or any legal proceedings, the making of an application or the lodging of a document for registration under the Registration of Title Act, 1891 or any Act amending that Act, at the Land Registry or to or with a local registering authority. The Irish Act would appear to be more comprehensive on this point than the English Act, of 1957. The appeal against conviction on the second charge was dismissed because on the facts, the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that his acts in preparing or drafting instruments of transfer under the Land Registration Act, 1925 were not done in expectation of fee, gain or reward within the meaning of Sect. 20 (i) (a) of the Act of J957- (Carter v. Butcher— The Law Times, Vol. 236-207, The plaintiffs, a finance company, claimed £406 from the defendants, motor dealers, under an in demnity in a recourse agreement in respect of a H.P. agreement which had been terminated owing to the hirer's default. The defendants claimed, inter alia, that until the issue of the writ they had not received notice of the termination of the H.P. agreement. It was held in the first instance that in the absence of their postage book the plaintiffs had not strictly proved the posting of the letters giving notice of termination which they alleged had been sent and it was assumed in the defendants' favour that the notices might not have reached them. Judgment was given in favour of the H.P. Company for £156. The plaintiffs appealed. Denning, M. R., stated that the issue depended upon whether or not the notice was given by the finance company to the dealers of termination of the hiring. The plaintiffs had lost their postage book. If the finance company did not give such notice the dealers and their position was prejudiced, the loss was not to be held against the dealers, but must go in diminution of the finance company's claim. Notice was not given to the dealers until the issue of the writ and detriment had thereby been caused to them. April gth, 1965). Evidence ; Postage

(Yeoman Credit Limited v. Birmingham Com mercial Motor & Bodyworks Ltd. (Solicitors Journal (Vol. 109), p. 293). Practice—Compromise of Action In 1963 the plaintiff began an action claiming relief in respect of architectural work carried out by the defendant company of property developers ; the defendants counter-claimed alleging negligence. In June, 1964 the defendants' solicitors initiated correspondence "without prejudice", with a view to compromise, offering £400 and recognising that as the plaintiff was legally aided they would have to meet his costs to date. By September the offer had been increased to £900. The plaintiff's solicitors then wrote stating that that offer would be accepted on the understanding that the costs incurred to date would be paid, and stated that as the plaintiff was legally aided they would require an order on the costs and therefore proposed to issue a formal summons before the Official Referee that terms of settlement had been arrived at. They requested defendants' cheque in settlement and concluded, that they would prepare a summons and forward it for "your consent to be indorsed thereon". At the hearing of the summons before the Official Referee, the parties were represented only by solicitors' clerks. The clerk for the defendants indicated that he was not happy about the position as to costs but the Official Referee held that, all further proceedings in the action should be stayed save for the purpose of carrying into effect the following items : (i) that the defendants pay the plaintiff the sum of £900 within seven days ; (2) that they pay the plaintiff's costs as between party and party, such costs to be taxed ; and (3) that the plaintiff's costs be taxed on a common fund basis. The defendants appealed on the ground that, as there was no concluded agreement to com promise, there was no justification to make the order which had been made. Denning, M. R. stated that there was no consent by the defendant's solicitors' clerk to the making of a Tomlin order. He stated that in his view when an action was compromised that gave rise to a new cause of action, and if there was a dispute the plaintiff had to sue on the compromise. In the absence of consent to the order, the court did not have jurisdic tion to make it. His lordship allowed the appeal with some reluctance as did Wynn, L. J. Danckwerts, L. J., dissenting, said that as a matter of construction there was on the correspon dence a final agreement to pay £900 and that agree ment included a term that the plaintiff's costs should be provided.