The Gazette 1967/71

mitted knowing of the averments in that action. It was admitted that they had acted honestly and with complete propriety in receiving the sums and that they could not know which way the main action would go, even if the allegations in the re- aracnded statement of claim were true. Held by the Court of Appeal (Danckwerts, Sachs and Edmund Davies, L.J.) the action against the solicitors must be dismissed, because— (i) (per Danckwerts, L.J.) (a) knowledge of a claim being made against the solicitors' client by the other party was not sufficient to amount to a not'ce of a trust or notice of misapplication of moneys to make the solicitors constructive trustees, particularly where unsolved questions of fact and difficult questions of German and English law were involved. (b) at the date of the payment of their costs and disbursements, the solicitors knew that the moneys came from the West German foundation and that there were claims against that founda tion that all its property and assets belonged to the East German foundation or we.e held on trust for it, but not whether those claims were well founded, and on the trial of a preliminary issue in the action against the solicitors, the allega tions contained in the statements of claim in both the actions between the foundations could not be assumed to be true. (ii) (per Sachs and Edmund Davies, L.JJ.) (a) at the date of action, the solicitors did not have such cognisances of the true ownership of the property of the trusts as would make an ordinary stranger a constructive trustee of the moneys, for whatever the nature of the knowlede such notice required, cognisance of a "doubtful equity" was sot enough, and no stranger could become a con structive trustee merely because he was made aware of a disputed claim the validity of which he could not properly assess. (b) the solicitors were also under no duty to inquire into the allegations of fact in the state ment of claim in the main actions or to make inquiries or attempt to assess the result on the law in such a complex matter. Decision of Pennycuick, J. ([1968] 2 All E.R. 1233), affirmed on different grounds. (Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v. Herbert Smith (No. 2) (1969) 2 A.E.R., 367). Doctor cannot sue Solicitor in respect of Privileged Evidence given in Court No action for damages however, framed can be brought against a witness for anything said in the witness box in the course of judicial proceedings, for public policy requires that a witness shall Toe immune from civil action. When, therefore, a 62

REGISTERS OF LAND BONDS On and from the 1st October, 1969, the Registers of Land Bonds at present kept by the Chase and Bank of Ireland (International) Ltd., formerly National City Bank Ltd., will be kept by the Bank of Ireland, College Green, Dublin. CIRCUIT COURT (Alterations of Circuit) ORDER 1969—S.I. No. 201/1969 This order provides that, as from the 1st January 1970, the County of Wexford will be transferred from the Eastern Circuit to the South Eastern Circuit. SOME RECENT DECISIONS Solicitor not liable as constructive trustee for claims against the client's money in hands, if he has a genuine claim for costs. The Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung Foundation of East Ger many claimed to be the original Zeiss Foundation in Jena in East Germany, and in 1955 it brought an action against another organisation or founda tion called Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung of West Germany, claiming that that foundation was wrongfully using the name "Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung" for the purposes of its business. In October 1967 it re- amended its statement of claim in the action to claim that the business of the West German foundation was its property or was held in trust for it, including the trade marks, trade names, patents, goods and other assets of every kind of that business, particularly those in the United Kingdom, and that that foundation was liable to account to it in respect of any dealings with those assets. Complicated facts and difficult ques tions of German and English law were involved in the case. In March 1968, the East German foundation brought a further action against the two firms of solicitors who had acted for the West German foundation in the original action, one up to May 1964 and the other thereafter. It alleged that each had received moneys in the United Kingdom from the West German foundation, being part of its assets or moneys arising from its trade or business, well knowing all the facts and matters averred in the main action and with notice that the moneys were the East German founda tion's property. Each was, therefore, liable to account to the East German foundation for the sums received, though not on the ground that they had intermeddled with the alleged trust moneys so as to be trustees de son tort. The solicitors admitted receiving sums on account of fees, costs and disbursements in the main action and ad­