The Gazette 1955-58

Notice to solicitor is not notice to client. Is the giving of a notice to a solicitor the equiv alent to giving the notice to a person unless that person is shown to have authorized the solicitor to have received the notice or to have held him out as so authorized ? No, said the full Court of the High Court of Australia, because it must be the solicitor's duty to communicate the notice to the client. In this case a solicitor who had acted only as the agent of another solicitor to obtain and forward to the latter a mother's consent to an adoption order was not thereby made an agent of the client to receive from the mother subsequent notice of the withdrawal of the consent to the adoption order. (R. v. Biggin, ex party Fry. (1955) A.L.K. 222 F.C. Victorian Law Institute Journal, Vol. 29, page 129.) Oral agreement to charge less than the authorized scale not enforceable. In a taxation of a bill of costs, can a client object to the taxaf'on on the alleged ground that there was an oral agreement with the firm that they would charge less than the authorized scale ? No, said Pearson, J. because on the plain meaning of Section 57 (3) of the (English) Solicitors Act, 1932, an agreement between solicitors and client with regard to the amount of charges for non- contentious business must be in writing in order to displace the authorized scale; accordingly the alleged oral agreement could not be relied on by the client. Per Pearson, J. :—" It was argued for the client in Jennings v. Johnson (8 C.P. 425), that under section 4 of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870, the client could rely upon an oral agreement for special charges to be made ; and that that must still be the position in regard to contentious busi ness under section 59 of the Solicitors Act, 1932, which is merely a consolidating Act; and that the position should be the same in relation to nor>- contentious business under the Solicitors Re muneration Act, 1881, and section 57 of the Solicitors Act, 1932, as otherwise there would be an anomaly. On the other hand, it was contended that the firm of solicitors was prepared to admit for the ] urposes of the argument that the position is anomalous, but that, nevertheless, effect must be given to the plain words and unmistakable meaning of the Act of 1881 as reproduced in section 57 of the Act of 1932. I think the main point to notice there is the difference of wording in section 8 of the Act of 1881 from the wording in section 4 of the Act of 1870. Section 4 of the Act of 1870 oddly provided only

that a solicitor may make an agreement with his client, but section 8 of the Act of 1881 says : "it shall be competent for a solicitor to make an agree ment with his client, and for a client to make an agreement with his solicitor. It is clearly regarding the transaction from each of its two sides." NOTE :—Section 4 of the Attorney's and Solicitors Act, 1870, provided briefly that a solicitor could make an agreement in writing with his client as to the amount and manner of payment for the whole or any part of any past or future services, fees or disbursements in respect of business done or to be done; such agreement could provide for a gross sum or a commission or a percentage or a salary and the remuneration could be at the same or at a greater or lesser rate than the rate to which he could otherwise be entitled to be remunerated. (This section applied to both contentious and non- contentious business). Section 9 of the Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881 states that the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870 shall not apply to any business to which this Act relates. Section 8 of the 1881 Act provides that in relation to any business under that Act, it is competent for a solicitor to make an agreement in writing with his client, or a client to make an agreement with his solicitor before or after or in the course of the transaction of any such business for the remuneration of the solicitor to such amount and in such manner as the solicitor and the client think fit, whether by gross sum or by per centage or by salary or otherwise. The fact that such agreement should be in writing, signed by the person to be bound thereby, or his agent, contained in that section is repeated in section 57 (3) of the English Solicitors Act, 1932. It therefore seems clear that the requirement of an agreement in writing has always been mandatory, whether the agreement relates to contentious or non-contentious business. (In Re a Solicitor (1955), 3 All. E.R. 305.) STATUTES OF THE OIREACHTAS, 1955. No. Signed by President 1. Medical Practitioners Act, 1955 2nd March, 1955 2. Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1955 2nd March, 1955 3. Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Contin uance and Amendment) Act, 1955 i6th March, 1955 4. Central Fund Act, 1955 2ist March, 1955 5. Tourist Traffic Act, 1955 2ist March, 1955 6. Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945 (Continuance) Act, 1955 zist March, 1955 7. Imposition of Duties (Confirma tion of Orders) Act, 1955 loth May, 1955 8. Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act, 1955 loth May, 1955 9. Local Government Act, 1955 loth May, 1955 64