The Gazette 1952-1955

conveyancers as it reviewed very fully the authorities on the subject o f the damages obtainable by the purchaser of a newly erected dwelling house from a vendor-builder for defects in the construction of the house. As a general rule, there are no implied conditions on the sale of land and in the absence of an express condition in the contract o f sale, no remedy will lie for such defects. However, in the case o f the purchase o f a house in the course of erection, there are certain implied warranties as to condition for the protection o f the purchaser. It would appear from the judgment o f the President o f the High Court that most defects, whether in materials or workmanship, are regarded as affecting habitability. The important question in most cases will be to decide whether the house was still in the course o f erection at the date when it was purchased. The decision o f the President o f the High Court will, no doubt, be a leading authority on the law in this important matter. (2) ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST SOLICITOR. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. I n Deignan v. Greene, an action against a solicitor for damages for alleged negligence noted in the Irish Taw Times and Solicitors’ Journal of 5th June, 1954, Murnaghan J. held that the action was in substance based on contract, and that on the authori­ ties it was the substance rather than the form of the pleadings which should be considered. Accord­ ingly the plaintiff was not entitled to a jury, and the Central Office had rightly refused to accept a notice of trial by a Judge with a jury. Reference was made to Jarvis v. Moy, Davies and Others (1936, I.K.B., 399) and Somers v. Erskine (1943, I.R ., 348) and Liston v. Munster & Leinster Bank (1940, I.R ., 77). It is understood that the plaintiff has appealed to the Supreme Court. (3) SOLICITORS’ LIABILITY ON ADMINISTRATION BOND. T h e Society’s Gazette for April last contained a note o f a decision o f the Queen’s Bench Division, England, in the case o f Harvell v. Foster and another, in which the Court held that the object of an admin­ istration bond is only to ensure the due winding up o f the estate until the residue has been ascertained and is in the administrator’s hands, and that as soon as the moneys have all been received and the debts have been paid, the administration is finished and

the administrator’s character changes from that of administrator to that of a trustee. On this view of the law, the Court held that the administrator having completed the administration, received the residue, and absconded without paying the beneficiary, the solicitors who were the sureties on the administration bond were not liable for his default. This decision has been reversed by the Court of Appeal in England. In their opinion on the failure o f the administrator to account for the proceeds of realisation o f the estate, he having misappropriated it to his own use, the administrator was shown not to have “ well and truly administered the estate according to law ” within the true meaning and intent of the bond. In the view of the Court, the duty o f an administrator as such must at least extend to paying the funeral and testamentary expenses and debts and legacies (if any) and where as in the present case the immediate distribution was impossible owing to the infancy o f the person beneficially entitled, to retaining the net residue in trust for the infant. At least until the administrator could show that he had done that, it could not in the Court’s judgment be said o f him that he had duly administered the estate according to law. (The Times newspaper, 16th July, 1954.)—(1954)- a- A L L E .R . 736. TRIBUNAL IMPROPERLY CON­ STITUTED-DECISION INVALID T h e plaintiff was the owner of a plot o f agricultural land o f about three acres. On June 16th, 1951, the Minister o f Agriculture and Fisheries gave notice in writing to the plaintiff that under the Agriculture Act, 1947, s. 85 (2), he proposed to issue a certificate certifying that he was satisfied that it was necessary for the purpose o f enabling him to secure or maintain the full and efficient use o f the land for agriculture, that possession o f the land should be, retained by him or on his behalf. In accordance with s. 85 (5) o f the Act, the plaintiff required that the Minister’s proposal should be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. On September 24th, 1951, the tribunal heard the reference. For that hearing the two nominated members of the tribunal, who should have been appointed by the Minister, were appointed by the secretary of the tribunal (who had no specific instructions from, and had no powers delegated to him by the Minister to make the appointments) in consultation with the chairman o f the tribunal. On October 12th, 1951, the tribunal issued its (4) COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND

3 i