The Gazette 1967/71

£3,000, damages were subsequently assessed as follows, Mrs. Perry for her own injuries £2,533, as executrix £2.330. Mrs. Bailey for her injuries £2,262. lan Bailey £150, the costs totaled £1,512. The issue in the present proceedings were whether the claims arose out of one or two or three or four occurrences. In rejecting the Defendants submission that the claims arose out of one occurance and that accordingly the liability was limited to £3,000. Mr. Justice Donaldson said that the word "occurance" referred not to the accident but to the insured. The question to be answered therefore was "how often did the assistants negligence occur" the answer was twice, the first when Mrs. Bailey was allowed to become administratrix and the second when the writs were not issued within the limited period. On a further point it was held that the £3,000 limit applied to all liability whether in respect of damages or costs. Provisions in the policy relating to the insured's own costs also gave rise to difficulty and it was held that as the insureds had not in fact "required" Mr. Forney to contest the claim the clauses did not apply. Forney v Dominion Insurance Co., Ltd. The Times, 29th March 1969. BOOK REVIEW An Introduction to Irish Death Duties by Charles Haccius. Published by the Institute of Taxation in Ireland at £2/10/0. This work is intended as an introduction to the Law of Death Duties in Ireland and is aimed at the student rather than the experienced practitioner. It fills a definite need long felt by students, a need agravated by the growing diversions between Irish and British Death Duty Legislation. Thus Legacy and Succession Duty which were abolished in England and Scotland by the Finance Act of 1949 are rarely dealt with in detail by the modern British text book. Mr. Haccius makes a cbtennin.v! effort to sketch a broad path through this intricate field and as he says himself "avoids the temptation of straying from the broad practical highway into the narrow theoretical byways of ones own choosing". While designed primarily for students the book will prove an invaluable asset in many Solicitors offices for it contains all the important Irish decisions and a great number of British and Commonwealth decisions on Estate Duty questions. A great deal of information is packed 12

authorised by the Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute by reference to a scale of fees payable for "Negotiating a Sale by Private Contract" or "introducing a person able ready and willing to purchase on terms authorised by the Vendor". A purchaser was introduced to the defendant by a disinterested third party and the defendant then asked the Estate Agent to attend to the negoiations which lead to a sale. The Estate Agent claimed £249 scale fees as remuneration for conducting as Agent the defendant's negotiations. It was held that the Agent by reason of his negotiations had been the efficient cause of the sale and was entitled to his scale fee. S. P. Rolfe & Co. v George, 113 SJ. 244. Solicitor, Negligence A Mr. Bailey took his wife, his son, and his parents in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Perry, for a drive. An accident occurred for which Mr. Bailey was to blame and he and Mr. Perry were killed and the other passengers injured. Mr. Bailey's brother consulted an assistant of the Plaintiff about obtaining Probate of the Estate and about tht question of claims arising out of the accident. The assistant thinking Mrs. Bailey was the obvious person obtained a Grant in her name in January 1965, but in doing so overlooked the fact that in the event of negotiations with the insurers breaking down and litagation proving necessary Mrs. Bailey would be unable to sue because she would be the nominal Defendant in the action. This error was not irrecovable: if, during the next six months, it had been noticed someone else could have been substituted as Administratrix. Negotiations with the insurers failed to produce a settlement and the assistant being oblivious of the fact that proceedings against the Estate of the Deceased tort feasor had to be begun within six months of the Grant of Administration the insurers repudiated liability in March 1966 as the claims were statute barred. A claim was made against the Plaintiff in this action, Mr. Forney, who in turn notified the Defendants that he would require indemnity under his professional indemnity policies. Claims were made against the Plaintiff by Mrs. Bailey, her son, and Mrs. Perry. The Defendants drew Mr. For- ney's attention to his policy which provided as follows: "Limits of Indemnity, (a) in respect of any one claim or number of claims arising out of the same occurance the sum of £3,000. (b) in respect of all claims under this policy the sum of £15,000. The underwriters were agreeable to settle all the claims up to a limit of