The Gazette 1964/67

1. On the taxa tion of a party and party bill of costs it is not necessary to show that counsel's fees were paid on the dates shown in the bill provided the payment of such fees is properly vouched. 2. Where counsel have given a receipt over their signature acknowledging payment of a brief or other fee and have signed vouchers the taxing master should accept such receipts and allow the fees or such part thereof as he thinks proper. The State v. Judge Durcan (I.L.T.R. Vol. XCIX p.ioy). Form of Certificate for Stamp Duty Purposes The appellant company was duly incorporated on the 15th September, 1943, as a limited liability company, under its original name of "The Dublin Marine Transport Company Limited". By resolution passed in 1958, the name was changed to "New Forest Estate Company Limited". In November, 1954, certain property was conveyed by V. to D.M.T.C. In March, 1960, the Revenue Commissioners were required to express their opinion as to the duty, if any, chargeable on the executed instrument. The Revenue Commissioners were of the opinion that the certificate contained in the said instrument, was not in compliance with the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947 and that, accordingly, ad valorem duty was payable. In March, 1962, the Company required the Commissioners to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court. By the Conveyance which was dated the ist day of November, 1954, the vendor as beneficial owner thereby granted and conveyed unto the appellant company certain premises and lands in fee simple. The conveyance contained the following certificate: "It is hereby certified that the Purchasers are a Body corporate incorporated in the state on or before the 15th day of October, One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven". Held by Kenny J., that the certificate did not meet the requirements of the Act; because it failed to certify the purchaser-company as the person becoming entitled to the entire beneficial interest in this property conveyed, that the Revenue were under no duty to require further information or to accept an amended certificate, and that the 25% ad valorem stamp duty was payable. (New Forest Estate Company v. The Revenue Commissioners I.L.T.R. Vol. (XCIC) p. 78) Retiring partner as consultant. Tax liability. The tax payer, a solicitor, retired from his partner ship with M from 29th February, 1956, on the terms of an agreement of 25th March, 1957. Clause 2 of . that agreement provided: "In consideration of the agreement on the part of M hereinafter contained 20

plaintiff went into possession and for some time carried on the business of a confectionery and tobacco retailer. The head landlord, in exercise of his powers under the head lease, prohibited the sale of tobacco in the shop as a result of which the plaintiff sustained a considerable loss of business. In an action by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages for breach of an implied, alternatively an express, warranty that the premises could lawfully be used for the sale of tobacco, the plaintiff relied for the express warranty on inter alia die failure of the defendants' then solicitors to reply to the letter of the plaintiff's then solicitors in relation to permitted user. Held inter alia that the defendants had not given any express warranty since the failure of the solicitors to reply to an assertion made in the course of negotiation for a sub-lease could not constitute a warranty and that the submission of a draft sub-lease was no more than an offer to negotiate a sublease on the terms of the draft; accordingly, there being no express or implied warranty, the plaintiff's claim failed. Per Russell L.J. The solicitors then acting for the plaintiff were negligent in not calling for and inspecting the head lease and would be liable to the plaintiff for the same measure of damages as he would have obtained had he established a warranty by the defendants. Hillv. Harris and Another (1965) 2 W.L.R. p. 1331. Occupation The defendant brewers owned a public house; they did not let the premises, but traded directly through a manager. The manager lived in the premises rent free, and as a privilege was allowed to take paying guests in the upper part, to which the public did not have access. One such guest fell and was killed on the "private" part of the premises. On his widow's claim for damages, held that the manager, and not the defendant, was the occupier of the "private" part of the premises for the purposes of the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957. (Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. (1965) 109 S.J. 334 4C.L. 524). Receipt for counsel's fees Practice—Costs—Party and party costs—Taxation —Counsel's fees—Vouching—Whether counsel's fees should be shown to have been paid before taxation—Whether to be shown to be paid on dates in bill of costs—Practice of Office of Taxing Master— Personal responsibility of Taxing Master—Court Officers Act, 1926 (No. 27 of 1926) s. 3, 6, 7, 58— Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 (No. 39 of 1961), s. 55, sub-s. i, Eighth Schedule paragraphs 2 and 8.