The Gazette 1967/71

Income Tax-Child Allowance The tax payer's son an undergraduate worked for 2£ months as a teacher in a French Lycee. The son did not remit any of his earnings but spent them all on lodgings and other incidental outgoings and was therefore chargeable to tax on those earnings. The tax payer claimed a full child allowance under the Income Tax Acts. The claim was refused on the ground that the allowance should be restricted as the child was "entitled in his own right to an income exceeding £115 a year'.' Held, that the full allowance could not be claim ed even though the child's income had not been remitted to the U.K. There was no reason for restricting the word "income" to income charge able to tax so that the father of the son with a taxable income would have his allowance reduced, but not of the same income was tax free. (Mapp [Inspector of Taxes] v. Oram The Times May 16th, 1968.) Dismissal of Action: Want of Prosecution. Inordinate delay in bringing proceedings to trial may entitle a defendant to an order dismissing the action for want of presecution the defendant need not give the plaintiff or his solicitors any prior warning of his intention to apply for such an order. Case 1. In 1959 the plaintiff's husband died as a result of an accident at work and she instruc ted her solicitor to issue proceedings against her husband's employers. A writ was issued in 1960 followed shortly by a statement of claim. The defence was delivered in 1961. Thereafter the plaintiff's solicitors did little to proceed with the action. In 1967 defendants' solicitors without prior warning, obtained an order dismissing the action for want of prosecution. Case 2. In 1960 Plaintiff instructed her solicit ors to issue proceedings against her employer for damages for injuries received as a result of an accident at work in 1958. No defence was deliver ed but instead the employers solicitors sought further and better particulars of the statement of claim. The plaintiff solicitor did nothing to pro- .ceed with the action (In fact he and his managing clerk were imprisoned in connection with other matters). The plaintiff instructed other solicitors who pressed their claim. The defendants asked for further time to deliver their defence; then without 14

becomes a differential in treatement. One way of cushioning the effect of the increas ed rates is for the solicitor to bear the first £250, £500 or even £1,000 of each and every claim himself. If he agrees to do this discounts of ten, fifteen and twenty per cent respectively are usually allowed. It must be remembered that these de- ductibles are in respect of each and every loss and not annual aggregate excesses. That is to say, if a solicitor who has a £250 excess each and every loss on his policy has four claims made against him he must pay up to £250 each time. To sum up: only reduced claims costs will halt the premium rise, but over the last fifteen years the profession as a whole has taken from insurers very much more in claims than it has given in pre miums. (From The Law Society Gazette, England). CASES OF THE MONTH Quantum Meruit In August, 1965 a Surveyor agreed with an owner of a house to prepare, drawings to arrange tenders,, to obtain necessary consent and to settle the accounts for certain proposed alterations to the house, and to supervise the work of alteration, the cost of which he estimated at roughly £600, for a fee of £30, which would cover possible extras but not other work. In April and May, 1966, when the builder had started the work, the owner order ed some more work which brought the total cost to £2,383. The Surveyor supervised the additional work but did not say anything about a fee for doing so until after the work was finished, when he subnitted an account of £135. Being the agreed £30 plus 100 guineas a scale fee for supervising the additional work, the owner paid only the agreed £30. Held. The Surveyor was entitled to the agreed fee of £30 only, because the fee was agreed in relation only to work originally estimated and possibly extras to it, no charge by way of quantum meruit for supervising the additional work was recoverable unless a new contract to pay a fee in respect of that work could be implied, and no such implication could be made if the parties had never discharged the original contract for one lump sum fee. (Gilbert and Partners v. Knight [1968] 2 A.E.R. 248.)