The Gazette 1958-61

conviction. The solicitor had previously been convicted in 1956 on two charges of indecency and had been suspended from practice for two years. As the result of the conviction in 1959, the Disciplin ary Committee directed that his name be struck off the roll and he appealed. It was held by the Court of Appeal that although not every type of conviction on a criminal charge would show conduct unbefitting a solicitor, nevertheless a conviction of insulting behaviour followed by a sentence and the maximum fine show such conduct and the findings of the Disciplinary Committee should stand. As regards sentence, in the absence of evidence before the Committee as to the nature of the acts leading to the conviction in 1959 the Committee were not entitled to assume that they were similar to the circumstances in the 1956 conviction. The Court reduced the penalty to one year's suspension. In differing in the matter of the penalty, which the Court said it would never do in a case of professional misconduct, the Court acted on the authority of re a Solicitor (1956. 3. All E.R. 516) in which the Court stated that they would interfere with the penalty only because the conduct was not committed by the solicitor in his professional capacity. (Re a Solicitor (1960. 2. All E.R. 621)). Deed—delivery by agent — escrow. A limited company issued under its seal a debenture giving a floating charge to a bank's nominees. The nominees were a wholly owned subsidiary of the bank. The bank decided to call in the loan and at the request of the bank the nominee company sealed an undated deed appointing a receiver in the presence of two directors of the nominee company who signed the deed in the ordinary course of attesting the affixing of the seal. The nominee company did not intend the deed to become unconditionally binding on them at the time that the seal was affixed. The documents were sent by the bank to their branch manager with instructions failing immediate payment to hand the instrument of appointment to the receiver. The branch manager subsequently inserted the date in the deed appointing the receiver and subsequently handed to the receiver the deed of his appointment. On the question whether the receiver had been validly appointed, viz., whether the deed appointing him had been delivered as the deed of the nominee company or was effective as an instrument under hand, it was held by the English High Court that (i) delivery of a deed was essential to its validity and the branch manager of the bank was not an agent of the nominee company duly authorised to deliver the deed of appointment on its behalf because no such power was conferred on him by the constitution of the 28

the buildings had been completely or almost com pletely finished before the leases were granted. 3. To summarise the position, (a) a lease of a site with a bonafide unfulfilled covenant by the lessee to expend an agreed amount on building is not charged with duty on the capital expenditure even though the money is to be paid to a named builder, e.g., the lessor. (&) Where there is an agreement for a lease of a site at a rent only, and buildings are erected by or on behalf of the lessee between the date of the agreement and the granting of the lease, duty is not charged on the capital moneys expended, provided that the agreement for the lease and the building agreement are separate and independently enforce able, (f) Where, between the date of an agreement for a lease of an undeveloped site and the granting of the lease, buildings are erected on the site, either by the lessor or by a third party, and under the terms of the agreement the lessee is not entitled to enforce the grant of the lease until the building price has been paid to the builder, the money so paid is regarded as consideration for the lease and ad valorem duty is charged in respect thereof. CIRCUIT COURT. SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS It is understood that the practice in the Taxing Master's office is as follows :—The Taxing Masters when taking bills of costs between solicitor and own client will act reasonably. Generally they will allow solicitors more than the party and party costs set out in the Circuit Court rules. They will not necessarily allow costs on the High Court scale less one third or less one fifth. In particular cases they might tax on such a basis but each matter will depend upon its own facts and circumstances. On a taxation of costs between solicitor and own client it might be objected on behalf of a client that the solicitor instituted proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff for say £600 when he should have claimed only £200 or £300 and that therefore the solicitor who had not explained to the clients the incidence of costs should be entitled to tax the costs only on the basis of a claim for £200 to £300. In such a case the solicitor might be expected to satisfy the taxing master that he is entitled to tax on the basis of a claim for £600. RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS Solicitor—conduct unbefitting a solicitor not being pro fessional misconduct—previous convictions—penalty, A solicitor was convicted of using insulting behaviour tending to cause a breach of the peace. There was no evidence before the Disciplinary Committee as to the circumstances giving rise to the