The Gazette 1946-49

the Urban District Council prepared the draft leases, had them settled by Counsel and approved by the Urban Council, the Department and the intended lessees. The terms of the various leases were identical and the engrossments were printed and executed by the tenants in duplicate. At this stage, before the leases had been sealed on behalf of the Urban District Council the County Manager wished to insert a new term as to non-alienation in each lease. The tenants refused to agree and the leases were never completed by the Urban District Council. The tenants are still in possession. The solicitor in each case acted for lessor and lessee. The Urban District Council have undertaken to pay the solicitor his proper costs. Both parties sought the opinion of the Council as to the scale on which costs should be drawn. In the opinion of the Committee which was approved by the Council, the transaction was not completed within the meaning of the General Order dated i6th April, 1884, and the costs should be drawn under Schedule 2, PROFESSIONAL TOPICS Remuneration of Solicitor to Public Assistance Board AN order was made by Mr. Justice Overend in the High Court, Dublin, that a solicitor was entitled to be paid by a Board of Public Assistance on a taxed costs basis, for all work done by him for the Board since the date of his appointment. The plaintiff claimed declarations that he had been employed by the Board as their solicitor on a taxed costs basis and that he was entitled to be paid costs on that basis since October ist, 1942. In his statement of claim he stated that on February 28th, 1938, he was appointed permanent solicitor to the Board on a taxed costs basis, subject to the Minister's sanction, the Board's total liability for such legal work not to exceed £250 per annum. The Minister's sanction, dated March I5th, 1938, read : " If the proposal is to employ Mr. (the plaintiff) as solicitor to the Board on a taxed- costs basis the Minister sees no objection thereto." He claimed that by virtue of the Minister's sanction and its adoption by the Board, he was duly appointed as solicitor to the Board on a taxed costs basis and that the addition to the Board's resolution pur– porting to limit their liability to £250 was ineffective and void. The plaintiff further stated that his bill of costs in respect of professional work done for the Board from January ist to December 3ist, 1943 amounted to £jdj, but the Board had refused to serve a

requisition to tax, save with a provision providing that they would not undertake to pay more than The Board pleaded in their defence that the Minister approved of the appointment in the terms of the Board's resolution and that from 1938 to 1943 they paid the plaintiff £250 per annum, which he accepted in full remuneration of his services to them. Mr. Justice Overend, delivering judgment, said that the only thing the Minister sanctioned was the plaintiff's appointment on a taxed costs basis without any over-riding maximum. The fact that the plaintiff had acted as solicitor ever since seemed to him to indicate that the Board accepted the Minister's qualification of what they had done and that the plaintiff's appointment was on a taxed costs basis only. If his view was wrong in that, if, in fact, the Board and the Minister were disagreeing, then it seemed that the Board were in a dilemma, that there was no valid appointment but that the position was that they had retained the plaintiff as solicitor to do the legal work of the Board as it arose. In that event, the plaintiff was also entitled to his taxed costs. He would make a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to be paid on a taxed costs basis since his appointment and direct the Board to pay the costs of the action. It is understood that notice of appeal has been served on behalf of the defendants. In re James C. Kirke, a Bankrupt (1946 I.R. 60) THE High Court decided a point on the effect of a signature by a client of a requisition to tax costs containing an undertaking to pay the amount found due thereon by the Taxing Master. The applicant James C. Kirke had been adjudicated a bankrupt in proceedings instituted by way of debtor's summons against him by a solicitor for taxed and certified costs amounting to £56 c^s. gd He applied to the Court under Section 129 of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857, to show cause against the adjudication, contending that the debt due in respect of the costs incurred did not amount to £io, and alleged that the petitioning creditor had not been retained by him in connection with the subject matter of the bill of costs and that no costs were in fact incurred by him. It appeared that after he had been furnished with the bill of costs the applicant had gone to another solicitor with the requisition to tax and signed it on his advice. The requisition was in the usual form and con– tained an undertaking " to pay any balance which the Taxing Master may certify to be due by me on Requisition for Taxation of Costs :