The Gazette 1964/67

are more and more the nephews and nieces. The right of succession of a spouse is not in the nature of "a forced share," and con sequently it can l)e superseded by a will. under the law are, it will be seen a reality. Members may be particularly interested in the chapter on Labour Law by Antti Suviranta, LL.D.; in view of the proposed Trade Union Legislation. The book contains 363 pages, has a useful index and is good value at the price. THE WISDOM OF OTHERS Good notes are of inestimable value in meeting any criticism that may arise and in preparing a defence to an allegation of negligence (Medical Defence Union, annual report 1966). Has not the time come to stop looking at our own costs and consider fees and prices charged by others? According to a news item in the Times on 27th October a camera with a landed price of £100 is sold retail for £295. The retailer's profit is stated to be £80. Investigation of other peoples charges must surely put our own charges into the correct perspective (letter in the Solicitors Journal). I cannot understand why so few solicitors specify in contracts that the deposit should be held by them instead of by the estate agent. Many estate agents are most un-cooperative and suggest that I am doubting their honesty by insisting that the deposit should be held by my firm. In many cases there is a simultaneous sale and purchase and the solicitor has to calculate accurately and in a short space of time the exact amount needed to balance the transaction. When a deposit is held by an estate agent it remains in the hands of the estate agent for several days after completion and the solicitor either has to ask the client to provide more money or to advance the money himself. There is no reason at all why this should be necessary. (Letter in the Solicitors' journal). CASES OF THE MONTH Solicitor Accountable for Personal Profit The English Court of Appeal affirming Wilber- force J. held that the appellants were liable to account for profit attributable to the respondents share in the Trust Fund less the expenditure in curred to enable it to be realised and making a liberal allowance for professional skill and work in earning it of the solicitor's appellants. The appellants (purchasers) were solicitors who had The freedom of the individual and his rights

acted as agents the Company and as proxies for the trustees at an annual general meeting of the Company. The respondent, a benificfiary under the will claimed an account of profits made as a result of the purchase by the solicitor and his co-appellant of shares in the company in which the trust had a substantial holding. The appellants having made the initial approach to the Company as proxies for the trustee had obtained valuable information about the company's affairs and, acting person ally, they bought a substantial majority of shares in the company. This purchase was made without the knowledge of one of the trustees, an old lady, but with the acquiescence of the two other trustees and it resulted in a large profit to the appellants and a benefit to the trustees' shareholding in the company. The Court of Appeal affirming Wilber- force J. held that the appellants were liable to account. An appeal to the House of Lords was dismissed by a majority. Viscount Dilhorne said that liability to account must depend on there being some breach of duty, some impropriety of conduct on the part of those in a fiduciary position. On the facts of the present case he did not consider that there was any breach of duty of impropriety of conduct on the part of the appellant and he would allow the appeal. Lord Upjohn also delivered an opinion in favour of allowing the appeal. Lords Coyne, Hodson and Guest delivered opinions in favour of dismissing the appeal basing their decision largely on Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v Bullover (1942 1A11. E.R. 378). (Bordman and others v Phipps).— Times, 4th November, 1966. Professional Negligence The Court of Appeal in England allowed an interlocutory appeal by Mr. Ellis Lincoln, solicitor, from an order made by the Judge in Chambers on appeal from Master Lawrence. The Master had given unconditional leave to the defendant Mr. Lincoln to defend an action for damages, for alledged negligence brought by the National Union Bank Ltd., and the Judge on appeal by the Bank had made leave to defend conditional on payment of £5,000 in to Court by the de fendant. The facts as stated to the Court of Appeal were that the plaintiff Bank which was incorporated in the Bahamas, sued Mr. Lincoln for negligent misrepresentation in certain letters written by Mr. Lincoln's managing clerk which had the effect of inducing the Bank to lend money to a client of Mr. Lincoln who wanted to obtain a bridging loan. It was alleged that the managing clerk wrote to the bank manager re ferring to certain properties and stating, "we have 92 in an initial approach to