The Gazette 1908-9

MAR., 1909]

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

103

Each successive Act contained provisions, either by changing- the tribunal of ultimate decision from Parliament to the Lord Lieu tenant in Council, or from that tribunal to the County Court Judge, or by shortening the period through which title was to be deduced, or otherwise saving expense and time. At each successive step provision was made in reference to solicitors' costs; and taking the code as a whole, I have arrived at the clear conclusion that interference with the theretofore existing methods of ascertaining solicitors' costs was one of the prominent objects of the Acts. Having gathered this from the legislation, I come back to the construction of sect. 31. The most plausible of the arguments we have heard in support of the restricted construction is that, were it intended to authorize the constitution of a new authority for the taxation of costs, such intention would have been evidenced by particular instead of general w.ords ; and we were asked to contrast the generality of the words in sect. 31 with the specific enactment in reference to costs in the County Courts con tained in sect. 11. We were told that the rights of solicitors in reference to their charges upon the investigation of title to real property were the subject of special consideration of Parlia ment, and was determined by it by the Solicitors' Remuneration Act of 1881, and that the general words of sect. 31 of the Act of 1906 ought not to be taken to repeal the Act of 1881, so far as related to these Title Costs, unless an affirma tive intention in the Legislature was shown. I agree in this principle. I agree that the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant renders it neces sary, in order to support the construction which interferes with the operation of the Act of 1881, to show upon the face of the Act of 1906 that the attention of the Legislature was specially directed to the amount of the remuneration of solicitors for making title to the lands taken ; and, in my opinion, this is abundantly shown in the Act itself. I have already called atten tion to the sections where solicitors' costs are expressly interfered with, and to the general scope of the Act, which simplified the investi gation of title, and, therefore, presumably, ought to reduce the remuneration for such investigation ; and then I find that the rules by which the jurisdiction under this section is to be exercised are to be made " after consulta tion with, or notice of consultation sent to the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland." The protection afforded to solicitors by the Act of 1881 was that the same officer,

the President for the time being of the Incor porated Law Society, was made one of the four persons, any three of whom, the Lord Chan cellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls, being the other three, were given power to make a General Order regulating the remuneration of solicitors in respect of making title to real property ; and, in my opinion, the provision that the President of the Incorporated Law Society should be given an opportunity of consultation with the Local Government Board before the rules were made was for the express purpose of securing that such alteration as might be made in the scale of remuneration fixed under the Act of 1881 should be a reasonable one. Being, then, clearly of opinion that there was jurisdiction under this section to make a general rule altering the scale of fees to be allowed to solicitors in respect of matters not otherwise provided for by the Act, the remaining question is, was it necessary that those fees should be referred for taxation to the taxing masters of the Supreme Court ? I cannot find anything on the face of the Act rendering this necessary. " May provide for the taxation of costs " means " may make such provision for the taxation of the costs as they shall think fit," and the appointment of any person to tax such costs who is willing or bound to tax is, in my opinion, a provision to that effect. The fact that there is power to change the scale of fees appears to me to be a strong argument in favour of this view, as the usual function of the taxing masters of the Supreme Court is to tax according to the scale binding upon them. Further, the word " fees " in the section, prima facie, includes Court and Office Fees; and this primafacie inference is strengthened by sect. 22, that " no fees shall be payable in the Local Registration of Title Office, or in the Registry of Deeds Office, as defined by the Local Regis tration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the registration of the ownership of any land pur chased by a District Council under the Labourers Acts, or for any searches made, or land certificate issued to a District Council in respect of such land." Now, fees are payable to the taxing masters of the Supreme Court in respect of the taxation of costs, and it seems to me perfectly clear that the general rules under sect. 31 could not alter the office fees paid in respect of taxation by the Supreme Court taxing masters ; and, there fore, if it were essential that the taxation should be by the Supreme Court taxing masters, the rules under this section could not fix " the