The Gazette 1964/67

the husband lent £1,000 to the wife which was acknowledged by the wife's solicitors. The pro ceedings terminated in March, 1963, and there was then correspondence between the solicitors acting for the parties concerning the costs, with a view to agreeing the amount so as to avoid taxation. Agree ment was reached that the husband pay to the wife £1,500 to cover the costs in the divorce suit and another matter which had been discontinued. After that agreement had been reached, the husband's solicitors requested that the £1,000 owed by the wife be dealt with at the same time. The wife's solicitors replied that that was a separate matter with which they were not concerned. The husband's solicitors then sent a cheque for £500 on account of the agreed costs and stated that the balance would be paid when the £1,000 was collected. Davies, L.JJ. said that it was well established that costs ordered to be paid were property recovered in an action, and charging orders might be made upon them : It was submitted that under s. 72 of the Solicitors Act, 1957, the court had no power to make any directions except in respect of taxed costs. Against that it was argued that the court had an inherent jurisdiction and power at common law not limited to taxed costs, and that a solicitor was prima facie entitled to a charging order for the protection of his proper costs. It was un necessary to decide those points, as any decision to make a charging order must be in the discretion of the court, and in the present case, as the parties were both wealthy persons, a charging order was not necessary. It would be unjust for the court to order the husband to pay the £1,000 or that the solicitors be given a charge on the £1,000. (Saunders v. Saunders (1965) 2. W.L.R. 33.) Counsel's admission not binding In the latest edition of Halsbury's Laws of England (vol. 3 at page 62) on barristers it is said that the statements of counsel, if made at the trial of an action or in the course of any interlocutory proceedings in the presence of the client or his solicitors, or someone authorised to represent them, and not repudiated, " bind the client and may be used as evidence against him.". This statement was considered in a recent case before the English Court of Appeal which was of the opinion that it is too wide. The Court held on the particular facts that where an admission had been made by counsel before a District Registrar in the presence of a solicitor's managing clerk, but in the absence of the client, the client was not bound by the admission. The defendant had put certain property up for sale by public auction but changed his mind before the auction and made a communication to that effect which did not get through to the auctioneers who sold the property

to the highest bidder. The defendant repudiated the sale and went to other solicitors and the buyers brought an action for specific performance. The contract had been signed by the solicitor acting for the defendant at the time of the purported sale and during the hearing before the District Registrar counsel admitted that the solicitor had authority to sign it. Eventually the matter came before Mr. Justice Pennycuick and affidavits had been filed denying the solicitor's authority to sign. It is established law that a solicitor, unlike an auctioneer, has no ostensible or apparent authority to sign a contract of sale on behalf of a client. Pennycuick, J. decided against the defendant because he held that he was bound by counsel's admission before the District Registrar. On an appeal to the Court of Appeal it was pointed out that the counsel who appeared on the summons before the District Registrar was not the counsel who had been in conference with the defendant and the managing clerk who had been present when the admission was made by counsel was not the solicitor who had been present at a material conference. The Court of Appeal held that an admission made by counsel in the course of proceedings could be withdrawn unless there was something in the nature of a real estoppel in the same manner as an admission made by a party in person if the statement had not been acted on by the other side to their detriment. There was no reason why a man should be any worse off in this respect if instead of making the admission himself it was made on his behalf by counsel. In the event the Court allowed the appeal and gave leave to defend the action. CH. Clarke (Doncaster) Ltd. v. Wilkinson. The Times, 27th January, 1965.) THE REGISTRY Register A FOR SALE : Established Solicitor's Practice in progressive Western Town. Apply Box No. A.ZZJ. LADY SOLICITOR required as Assistant for Cork City Office. Reply to Box No. A. 226. WANTED, Qualified or Unqualified Assistant for busy Solicitor's office in Provincial Town. Particulars to Box No. A. 227. Register C. ANNE G. NICHOLS, deceased, 40 Merlyn Park, Ballsbridge, Dublin. Any person having a Will of the above deceased, please communicate with Moore, Keily & Lloyd, 31 Moles- worth Street, Dublin 2. WILL any Solicitor or other person having knowledge of a Will of Susan Elizabeth Keegan, late of 2 Shanganagh Terrace, Killiney who died on the 3151 day of January, 1965, kindly communicate with S. G. Rutherford & Co., Solicitors, 31 Lower Leeson Street, Dublin 2. 73