The Gazette 1955-58

AUTUMN EXAMINATIONS

awarded damages to the plaintiff, Mrs. Sheela Kathleen Hall, widow of Robert Constable Hall, of Alton, Hampshire, on her claim for loss of benefits conferred on her by her late husband's will, on the ground that the defendant, who was her solicitor, had been negligent in failing to advise in November, 1949, that a marriage between her and her late husband would have the effect, under the Wills Act, of revoking the wills which he had at that date been instructed to draft for each of them. The parties were married in September, 1950, the wills being thereby revoked; and in December, 1952, Mr. Hall died, without having made any further will. The plaintiff's action came before Mr. Justice Ashworth in November, 1956, on a statement of claim delivered in April, 1954, which alleged that in November, 1949, the plaintiff (then Mrs. James a widow) and Mr. Hall (then a divorced man) had jointly retained Mr. Meyrick to advise them in making mutual wills in contemplation of mar riage. After two days of hearing the Judge indicated that he was not prepared to find that there was any joint retainer, and that the case as pleaded must fail. Counsel for the plaintiff asked for leave to amend to allege in the alternative that there had been separate retainers by the plaintiff and Mr. Hall respectively. The Judge allowed the amendment and eventually gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Lord Justice Hodson said that the first point taken for the solicitor had been that the Judge was wrong to allow the amendment, since it was unjust to the defendant to deprive him of the benefit of the Statute of Limitations by a circuitous route. His Lordship proposed to rest his decision on that poirit. Thus one of the questions raised on this appeal, of great moment and interest to solicitors, was whether the Judge had been right in holding that there was any duty at all on a solicitor in the cir cumstances to draw the attention of the client or clients to the provisions of section 18 of the Wills Act. Though his Lordship did not propose to give his concluded opinion on that point, it could not be the duty of a solicitor in all cases to draw the attention of persons who came to their offices to make wills to the effect of marriage on a will. Each case depended on its own particular facts. This was a very unusual and special case. The parties came into the office—a man and a woman, both relatively elderly, each known to the solicitor to be single, each desiring to benefit the other sub- 30

Examination

Date

Latest date for giving notice. August izth August izth

First Law

Sept. 2nd & 3rd

Book-keeping September 3rd

Final

Sept. 2nd, 3rd & 4th August i2th Sept. i6th & iyth August z6th

Preliminary

First and second Irish Sept. i8th

August 2 8th

SOLICITORS' APPRENTICES' DEBATING SOCIETY OF IRELAND. FOR many years there have been informal inter- Debates between the four student Law Societies in Dublin. This year, the arrangements were put on a more formal basis when the Benchers of King's Inns presented a large silver Trophy for annual competition. The inaugural Debate of the new series was held at King's Inns on Friday, June I4th, with the Chief Justice in the Chair. A very distinguished attendance included members of the judiciary, the President of the Incorporated Law Society, Mr. Gaffney ; members of the Diplomatic Corps, the Minister for Education, and some hundred solicitors, barristers and students. The Assessors were : Mr. Desmond Collins (for the Apprentices' Society) ; Professor Moran (for the D.U. Law Society) ; Mr. Edward Fahy (for the King's Inns Society), and Professor McGilligan (for the U.C.D. Law Society). The Trophy was awarded to the Apprentices' team—Mr. Desmond P. H. Windle and Mr. Peter Smithwick. The Auditor, Mr. Laurence F. Branigan, accepted the Trophy on behalf of the Society. It is noteworthy that the Chief Justice is an ex-Auditor of the Society. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST. Duty of solicitors in drafting will Depends on circum stances. The Court of Appeal (Hodson, Parker and Ormerod, L.JJ.) allowed this appeal by Mr. Meyrick, retired solicitor, of Baling, from a decision of Mr. Justice Ashworth on December 2ist, 1956 ([1957] 2 W.L.R. 458), by which, having allowed an amendment to the original statement of claim, he