The Gazette 1955-58

Vol. 51 No. 1

MAY, 1957

THE GAZETTE of the INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND

PrtriJtnf NIALL S. GAFFNEY

Viee-friiidents DESMOND J. COLLINS CHARLES J. DOWNING

Secritary ERIC A. PLUNKETT

FOR CIRCULATION AMONG MEMBERS

MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL

the additional outlay from any monies in his hands as an amount paid for the use of the client and so informing him. Payment to a solicitor. Power to give a receipt on behalf of client. AN unsuccessful defendant against whom judgment was given in the High Court for damages and costs maintained that the plaintiff's solicitor has no power to give a receipt for the costs and that the cheque for the amount thereof should be made payable to the client. The ground for this view was that party and party costs are only an indemnity to the client against his solicitor and client liability. The Council referred to the following statement in Cordery on solicitors 4th edition (1935). page 117 : A plaintiff's solicitor is authorised to receive payment or tender of debt or costs before or after judgment except where the plaintiff is an infant or of unsound mind. Different considerations may apply where a case is settled before the institution of proceedings as there is then no solicitor on record. The Council

APRIL IITH: the President in the Chair. Also present: Henry St. J. Blake, John R. Halpin, James R. Quirke, Desmond J. Mayne, D. J. Collins, Ralph J. Walker, Cornelius J. Daly, Francis J. Lanigan, George G. Overend, Derrick M. Martin, Terence de Vere White, George A. Nolan, John J. Nash, Arthur Cox, Reginald J. Nolan, Joseph P. Tyrrell, John Maher, Peter E. O'Connell, C. E. Callan, W. J. Comerford, John J. Dundon, Scan 0' hUadhaigh, Charles J. Downing, Thomas A. O'Reilly, John Carrigan, R. McD. Taylor. The following was among the business transacted. Outlay omitted in taxed bill of costs. A MEMBER, who omitted certain outlay from a taxed bill, due to the recent statutory orders increasing Court fees of which he was unaware, enquired whether as a matter of professional con duct he was debarred from charging the amount to the client. The Council, while not expressing any view on the legal position, stated that there would be no professional objection to member's deducting