The Gazette 1967/71

NEGLIGENCE £1.600

greater portion of the work done by the solicitors was in connection with the defence of the claim was correct. 4- In view of the work actually done in this case by the solicitors for the defendants, the instructions fee of £63 was generous. 5. The Taxing Master did not err when he stated that as between party and party, he could not allow a second senior counsel on the counterclaim. 6. As this case was taken, before the Superior Court Rules 1962 came into force Order 99, Rule 38 (3), which expressly provided for objection being taken as to amount, does not apply. Accordingly this case must be dealt with under the 1905 Rules. Consequently the Judge declines to intefere with discretion of the Taxing Master in fixing amounts. Geoffrey William Fenton and Knockrabo School Limited v. Stanley Scholfield Ruth Scholfield and Sc'-olf-H Scott Ltd. (No. 2 N — Murnaghan J. — unreported — 24th May 1967). ALLEGED RIOTOUS BEHAVIOUR IN THE BOGSIDE Miss Bernadette Devlin, M.P., was summoned despite the presence of hundreds of rioters apparently on a selective basis bv District Inspector Armstrong in the Bogside in Derry on 13th August, 1969. She was ultimately convicted by Resident Magistrate Shearer on four counts and was sentenced to the maximum term of six months imprisonment without the option of a possible maximum fine of £100 on 22nd December, 1969. On the application of her Counsel, Sir Dingle Foot, the Resident Magistrate stated a case to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, but all the arguments of the appellant, Miss Devlin, were dismissed by that Court (Lord MacDermott C.C.J., Curran and McVeigh L.J.J.) on 22nd June 1970. Furthermore, on 26th June, 1970, on apparent grounds of bias, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords to determine questions of Law which had never been considered bv it before. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Lord MarDermott, and can be criticised bv its omissions rather than its arguments. As these omissions had been made subject of official reports, such as the Cameron Report and the Bailey Report into the conduct of the police in respect of incidents in the Derry Bogside in August 1969, in which no less than 12 policemen were suspended from dutv for deliberately attacking people and damaging property, this judgment can only be approached with cynical scepticism. The principle in De Smith. Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 2nd edition, at p. 237, is stated thus :— "The common law disqualifies a judge frorn adjudicating wheneever circumstances noint to a real likelihood that he will have an operative compelling bias in relation to a party or an issue before them " Manv of us may not agree with the extreme socialist principles which Miss Devlin as an M.P. has forrpfullv advocated from time to time, nevertheless we wrmlH trv to be fair to her in anv adjudication. The Court of Armeal appears to have signallv failed to Ho so. The principal defence that Miss Devlin in the

for

Solicitor

against

awarded

Damages

Negligence in not investigating title. Plaintiff lady brings action against X and Y practising as a firm of solicitors; X acted throughout as solicitor for the plaintiff. Plaintiff's husband died, and as plaintiff wanted to earn a livelihood, she wished to acquire premises and carry on dealing in antiques. Under the terms of the lease, the premises to be sold could only he used for the sale of groceries, but X did not inform the plaintiff of this. Plaintiff agreed with sitting tenant to acquire interest in the lease for £600, and paid X a deposit of £150, but did not read the agreement, nor did X explain the grocery restriction. X mistated the position to Vendor's solicitor, in stating that plaintiff proposed carrying on the existing business on the premises; No Requisitions on Title were ever furnished by X despite ample time. Plaintiff sent cheque of £450 for balance of purchase money to X. Plaintiff was allowed by X to execute the assignment, although he had not investigated the title, nor had he obtained the consent of the landlord as to change of user. It was only after the closing that X wrote to Landlord's solicitors suggesting a change of user, which was refused. X should have informed Plaintiff that she could not conduct any business in the premises other than a grocery until permission had been obtained, but he did not do so. X never succeeded in getting the Assignment executed neither b" the Landlord nor by the Assignor. Held—the firm of X and Y was negligent, and apart from the £600 which the plaintiff paid to them for the purchase of the premises, they were also liable for various sums totalling £1.091, including £666 in respect of vouchers and receipts properly incurred by the plaintiff. Plaintiff must however give credit for remaining in the premises for 17 months. Amount will be determined later. (A.B. v. X and Y—unreported—Murnaghan ].— 17th October 1968). TAXATION OF COSTS — Principles Applicable Review of Taxation from Master O'Reilly. The action was brought by the plaintiff against Defendants for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of a property in Co. Wexford. The defendants denied this or that the plaintiffs had suffered anv damage; however they counterclaimed for damage to a fishery on the lands. Original action heard in High Court before Davitt P. for 10 davs. The President gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £11 700 with costs — and for the Defendants for £210 with costs. The Defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court substituted the sum of £5.000 damages to the plaintiff for £11,700. The plaintiff's bill of costs, and defendant's bill of costs were dulv taxed in Februar" 1966. and the defendants obiected to the disallowance b" the Taxing Master of 129. items in their Bills of costs. It was held :— 1. The the Taxing Master was wrong in disallowing fees to attend Counsel to have documents settled. 2. That it was for the Taxing Master to apportion the costs as between the claim and the counter- -i-im when thev overlapped. 3. The Taxing Master's finding that "Bv far tho

63