The Gazette 1967/71

charges. Requests are frequently made for the provision of assessment of costs on work in hand. The accountants have not expected to disburse fees for such certificates and clients have not regarded such certificates as worth a substantial fee. The principle of liability on certificates in consequence to Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. (1964) A.C. 465, is still not appre ciated. There is now a further development pro posed by certain leading firms of accountants, based on their American experience (or misfor tunes). Solictors are asked to list proceedings of any substance, involving more than £500 or £1,000 in which the company is, or may be, involved, to give estimates of liabilities or to check the list pro vided by the board and to comment on the board's estimates. Not unnaturally, the initial reaction of the profession is hostile. The administrative work and responsibility of yet another request is a burden which it is unreasonable to expect solicitors to accept on the present basis of nominal re muneration. However, as has been pointed out by the Daily Telegraph, this is a service, which the clients may require. It can be given, provided such certificates are to be paid for at a realistic rate which will have to take account of special administrative arrangements, principals' time and the other aspects of schedule 2 charging that are involved. On this view the charge for a certificate of infoimation required for the purpose of annual accounts, should be worth not less than £50 to £100 to check and report. Where matters of im portance have to be considered and assessed, the charge should be many times such a figure. This would be an annual recurring fee, and in such case solicitors may welcome the practice. It has the advantage, too, that solicitors would be on the footing of annual communication with an annual fee and close association between solicitors and clients which accountants enjoy through the annual auditing procedures. Far too often, the opportunity to evolve the bases of practice are lost or thrown away because solicitors lack the courage to charge proper commercial fees where there is no established scale to which they can refer. — (The Solicitors' Journal). STRIKE LAWS CASE AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT Sir John Pennycuicks' ruling in the High Court on Tuesday that the threatened protest strike over the Government's Industrial Relations Bill is prima facie unlawful because it is not a trades

dispute is likely to become an important precedent for lawyers. It is believed to be the first time since the General Strike in 1926 that the courts have had to consider whether inducements to go on strike should lose the normal protection of the Trades Dispute Act because the strike is being called for political reasons. Injunctions were granted on Tuesday against leaders of a newspaper union, Division A of the Society and Graphical Allied Trades restraining them from any further action until Friday to get members to take part in the strike planned for December 8th. The seven members of the division's executive council technically face imprisonment for con tempt of court if they defy the injunctions. Although there has been a noticeable increase in the number of injunctions issued by the courts to restrain strike action in trade disputes in recent years, committals for contempt are virtually un known. Court orders are generally respected and, if not employers can be reluctant to have them enforced. Lawyers point out that the S O G A T case is still at a comparatively early stage and the judge's order is in the nature of a holding operation until 20 other union leaders have an opportunity to take part in proceedings. On Friday, December 4th, Sir John Pennycuick, the Vice-Chancellor decided to grant injunctions ordering the union officials to withdraw the strike call to their members working for national news papers. For union officials and members to benefit from the protection from civil action afforded by the Trade Disputes Act, 1906 their strike action must be "in contemplation or furtherance" of a trade dispute. This is defined as "any dispute between em ployers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employ ment or non-employment or the terms of employ ment, or with the conditions of labour, of any person". Professor Kenneth Wedderburn, Professor of Commercial Law at the London School of Econ omics said he thought it was because there were so few strikes with purely political motives, that this issue under the Trades Dispute Act has so rarely come before the courts. "There have been a marked increase in the number of injunctions issued by courts in trade disputes, but so far as one can tell they have 139