The Gazette 1955-58

passed on to the tenant. It was further stated that the vendor could give no information of previous lettings. The contract of sale contained a special condition referring to the fact that the two upper floors were each let at rentals of 255. per week inclusive. When the plaintiff attended to sign his part of the contract, the defendant went through the inquiries and answers and remarked that as there had been increases in rates since 1950 it was possible that the plaintiff could increase the rents. In January, 1954, the sale was completed. In May, 1954, the plaintiff proposed an increase of rent to the tenants of the upper floors. In reply a reduction was demanded and in September, 1954, the standard rents of the upper floors were fixed by the county court at 155. each, the recoverable rents with permitted increases being 175. 6d. per week and i8s. 4d. per week respectively. In con sequence the plaintiff had to make repayments of overpaid rents to the tenants. He claimed damages for the defendant's negligence. Held by Danckwerts, J. :—that the defendant was liable for negligence because he had accepted the information given by the vendor relating to rents without ascertaining, either by questioning the vendor further or by asking the tenants, what were the standard and recoverable rents of the property, and because he had failed to advise the plaintiff that he could not rely on the rents which were being paid being recoverable rents. Per Danckwerts, ]. :—Where inquiries before contract have been made, it is still the duty of a purchaser's solicitor to make the appropriate requisitions and inquiries after the formal contract is signed, even if the preliminary inquiries have been so complete that it is only necessary to ask whether the answers thus received are still complete and accurate. (Goodyv. Baring[ic)^6] 2 AH. E.R. n.) OBITUARY. MR. JOHN L. KEALY, Solicitor, died on the 3rd May, 1956 at St. Vincent's Hospital, Dublin. Mr. Kealy served his apprenticeship with the late Mr. Joseph M. Reilly, Drogheda, was admitted in Hilary Sittings 1928 and practised at Drogheda, Co. Louth. MR. JOHN LOMBARD, Solicitor, died on the 13th May, 1956 at St. Lawrence's Hospital, Dublin. Mr. Lombard served his apprentices nip with the late Mr. William Devoy, 74 Dame Street and the late Mr. John Hawthorn, 15 Eustace Street, was admitted in Hilary Sittings, 1928 and practised at Gorey, Co. Wexford. 8

because he neither knew nor was in a position to know the misleading character of the affidavit and therefore it would not be right to make him what might be called for this purpose " criminally liable " for what was done. But the section did not require that the solicitor himself should be found guilty or punished before the clerk could be dealt with by the committee. It would be a strange result if because the solicitor showed that he had no knowledge of what his clerk did, the clerk could escape the consequences of his mis conduct. It would mean that a clerk who was able to conceal his misconduct from his master could escape any punishment by the Disciplinary Committee. As soon as it was discovered that a false affidavit had been filed in an action or proceeding it was clear that an application could be made against the solicitor who was responsible as the solicitor on the record for the filing of the affidavit. He might be able, as in the present case, to show that the affidavit was false. In my opinion there was no doubt that the Society, who had learnt of the clerk's action in the course of the inquiry against the solicitor, could take the proceedings authorised by the section. (In Re a Solicitor''! Clerk, [1956] 2. All. E. R. 242). It should be noted that the Solicitors' Act, 1954 does not contain any provision similar to s.i6 of the (English) Solicitors' Act 1941 enabling the Law Society to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over solicitors' clerks. A Solicitor held negligent in not ascertaining standard Rent before completion of sale. The plaintiff instructed the defendant, a solicitor, to act for him on the plaintiff's purchase of a lease hold dwelling-house. At the plaintiff's suggestion the vendor instructed the defendant to act in the matter on his, the vendor's, behalf. The premises were registered with a good leasehold title and were within the Rent Restrictions Acts. The house contained three floors, and .was to be sold with vacant possession of the ground floor. The two upper floors were each let at 255. per week. The defendant noted answers to questions raised on a printed form of " Inquiries before contract," and in reply to a question relating to subsisting tenancies, with particular reference to the Rent Restrictions Acts and to the amount of the statutory and net rents, the defendant noted, on information supplied by the vendor, that the two upper floors were each let at 255. weekly inclusive of rates. As regards the top floor the defendant noted that 255. was the rent receivable when the vendor bought the property in 1948 and no increase in rates had been