The Gazette 1967/71

regard where possible to practitioners needs to absorb new legislation in time to advise their clients. Editor: (e) Do you agree with the recent recom mendation of The Law Society's Council that all practising solicitors should be empowered to per form the function of a commissioner for oaths with the consequent abolition of that office? Lord Chancellor: There is much to be said for this proposal and I will consider it in the context of all the other recommendations made in The Law Society's memorandum. Solicitors' status Editor: 8 A feeling still persists among some solicitors that some barristers and judges want to 'keep solicitors under', and that as any Lord Chancellor must come from the bar he will never be over-sympathetic to the solicitors' branch. Could you comment on this? Lord Chancellor: I am surprised to hear it suggested that there is a desire in some quarters to 'keep solicitors under' — whatever that may mean. It may be that the recent history of the claim for improved remuneration has had some thing to do with this, but I am quite sure that this feeling, if it exists, is based on a complete mis conception. I know that my predecessor was as anxious as I am to do everything he could to help solicitors to deal with the problems which face them today. The real position of solicitors has never been as high as it is now, and in my opinion the status, quality and prestige of the profession are constantly rising and will continue to do so with my full approval and encouragement. (The Solicitor's Journal, 30th October 1970) I CURRENT LAW DIGEST I SELECTED_________| In reading this digest regard should be had to differences between Irish and English statute law. COMPANY LAW A footwear company was incorporated in 1943 with share capital of £20,000 (shares of £1 each). In December 1948, the nominal capital was increased to

£40,000 by creation of £20,000 cumulative Preference Shares of £1 each—and a new rule incorporating this amendment was made. Preference shareholders could not attend meetings save one to wind up the company. In February 1950 the 6% Preference Shares were amended to 5% Non-Cumulative Preference Shares. In July 1952, the 5% Non-Cumulative Preference Shares became 5% Cumulative Preference Shares. In December 1967, the capital of the company was increased to £60,000 by creating 20,000 7% redeemable cumulative preference shares of £1 each and all other preference shares were declared non-cumulative; part of the balance to the credit of the profit and loss account was capitalised, and used to pay for the 20,000 7% redeem able shares. In May 1970, the holders of these redeemable preference shares passed a resolution that they had a right to vote conferred by the holding of these shares; this was disputed by the plaintiff. Kenny J. held that the holders of the redeemable preference shares had not got a right to vote at all meetings of the Company because of their holdings in these shares. (2) The previous governing Director of the company had died in 1969 and, by his will, had appointed the plaintiff to be governing director. It was contended that an assignment of this position could not be made. Kenny J. held that, to be effective, an assignment of a directorship can only be made during the life of the person making it, and that consequently, a power of appointment by will of a directorship was ineffective. The Greene Committee's recommnedation was that such an assignment should be void until it had received the sanction of a special resolution. Kenny J. held however that such a special resolution was not necessary in the case. Consequently the two declarations sought by the plaintiff will be made. [Michael Fitzpatrick v Fitzpatrick's Footwear Ltd. and others—unreported—Kenny J.—18 November 1970.] Compulsory Acquisition The court can and will interfere with a minister's decision confirming a compulsory purchase order which overrules a recommendation by one of his inspectors if it is clear that the minister came to his conclusion on the wrong evidence or on no evidence. Where, therefore, an inspector for the Minister of Housing and Local Government recommended that a first-class property in an area scheduled for slum clear ance in Tower Hamlets should be excluded from a compulsory purchase order because its acquisition was not reasonably necessary for the satisfactory develop ment or use of the cleared area and the Minister over ruled the recommendation and confirmed the order, the court quashed the Minister's decision because there was no evidence entitling the Minister to decide. [Coleen Properties Ltd. v Minister of Housing and Local Government—Court of Anneal— The Times— 27 January 1971.] CONTRACT In order to comply with the words ". . . the port of destination shall be declared by the last buyer to his 195