The Gazette 1964/67

and about the conduct of

the 14th September, 1962 the purpose of arranging terms of sale of certain freehold regis tered lands of which the defendant was the regis tered full owner. As to some of the lands the registration was subject to certain rights of sup port and maintenance reserved to her mother during the latter's life. At the meeting the plain tiff was acting as solicitor for and under the instruction from a Mr. S. and Miss S. The terms agreed upon at the meeting were embodied in a letter dated 16th February, 1962 "re sale of her lands to the writer in trust for a client" and accepting the terms of sale set out in that letter and asking for delivery of a contract. No form of contract was delivered or executed, it being sub sequently agreed between the plaintiff and the solicitor for the defendant that the terms of the agreement were fully set out in the letter of 16th February, 1962. The plaintiff forwarded a cheque to the solicitor for the defendant for the amount of the agreed deposit and his letter was headed : "Miss B. T. Walsh to Self (in Trust)." The agreement made between the plaintiff and Mr. S. and Miss S. inter se was that the plaintiff should act independently of them until such time as the matter had progressed to the stage when a conveyance was being executed. The plaintiff was to act as a trustee for Mr. S. and Miss S. Held: by Budd J., 1. That on the facts of the case the plaintiff contracted as principal and was entitled to institute and prosecute the pro ceedings in his own name. 2. That the letters constituted a note or memorandum of the contract sufficient to satisfy the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. (Martin J. Lavan v Bridget T. Walsh, I.L.T.R. Vol. XCIX p. 147). Immunity of Advocate Mr. Justice Lawton recently dismissed an ap peal by Mr. Norbert Fred Rondel, at present detained in H.M. Prison, Wandsworth, against the order made by Master Lawrence, in Chambers in May 1965 ordering that his statement of claim against Mr. Michael Dominic Lawrence Worsley, barrister-at-law, be struck out and the action dis missed. In June, 1965 the Plaintiff appealed against the order to the Judge in Chambers (Mr. Justice Browne), who adjourned the matter into open court and invited the Official Solicitor to instruct counsel as amid curiae since the appeal raised a point of public interest, namely, whether an action for negligence can lie against a bar rister at the suit of a client for negligence in for

the client's case

in

court. It was held that any advocate, be he barrister or solicitor, who appeared for a client before a Court of law was an officer of justice just as the Judge was, and, as in the case of a Judge, public policy required that he be protected from law suits brought by disgruntled litigants. Otherwise a number of evils would follow. First, Judges would no longer get from barristers and solici tors acting as advocates the help which they got. Instead of thinking how best to help their clients and justice, they would think of how to protect themselves. Secondly, unpleasant clients would have difficulty in finding advocates to represent them. Thirdly the Courts would be burdened with cases well-nigh impossible to try. Plaintiffs might allege, as this plaintiff did, that counsel had been negligent in cross-examining as he did. To try such an issue would mean a re-trial of the first case. Worse would be cases in which the alleg ation was an omission to ask questions. Many convicted of criminal offences, after having ex hausted all rights of appeal, would seek years later to get re-trial by an action of negligence against their advocate. There would be no end to litig ation. His Lordship set out at length why advocates could not be sued for negligence in and about the conduct of their client's cases in Court and had used the word "advocate" not "barrister" because immunity from suit arose from the part played by an advocate in the administration of justice, not from membership of an Inn of Court. Rondel v Worsley, The Times (December 22nd 1965). CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence has arisen as a result of the introduction of the Housing Bill in Dail Eireann. On 5/11/65 the Society wrote to the Minister for Local Government as follows: — "Dear Minister, In the report in the Irish Times of November 3rd on the debate in Dail Eireann on the Housing Bill Mr. Mark Clinton, T.D., is reported as having made certain statements on the subject of solicitors' costs, auctioneers' fees and stamp duty. I enclose a copy of a letter to Mr. Clinton of this date for your information. In the same report you are reported as having said that you offer no apology for the 1 per cent tax revenue when the "Boyos" were taking a good deal more. In fact the stamp duty charged by the State is usually considerably more than the amount of the solicitors costs. The newspaper report mentioned conveys a com pletely wrong impression to the public and I am bring ing this matter to your attention to remove any wrong impression on your part. 71