The Gazette 1971

ago claimed as against that sum an equitable credit of £28,436 expended on buildings in connection with the King's Inns Society, and also a further credit of £10,874 expended on a lecture hall at King's Inns. The Society of Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland were willing to allow credit for any sums expended on buildings abso- lutely given over to the Society, but they objected that credit should be allowed for the full sum until they were put into possession of all the buildings, and of the ground on which they were erected if it was included in the sum expended. He would ask to have a return furnished by the King's Inns Society of the sums re- ceived from December 1793 to August 1866 on the admission of attorneys and solicitors, showing each year's receipts—an account of the manner in which the moneys were applied or disposed of—and an account of the sums in Government funds, the property of the Society each year from 1794. Mr. O'Hanlon, on behalf of the Society of King's Inns, said, in the absence of the Attorney-General he could not undertake to furnish the third account asked for. The other two accounts could be furnished, but considerable time should be given, as they would have to be made under his own personal superintendence and he would be occupied during term and for some time after it. He might assure the Commissioners that the Society would give every facility in their power for carrying on the inquiry. Lord Monck said he was sure of that. Mr. Palles said the Commissioners ought personally to inspect the buildings at present in the possession of the Society of the Attorneys and Solicitors, and judge of the amount of accommodation afforded. Lord Monck said the Commissioners would do so. After some discussion it was arranged that the Society of King's Inns should be asked to furnish the returns mentioned before the 20th June next. After this was done, the Commissioners would name a day when the inquiry would be proceeded with. The Irish Law Times (27th May 1871) plaintiffs did not commence building being under the impression that they were not entitled to do so. The purchaser's solicitors failed to inform their client that they were in danger of losing the contract. Finally on 13th November 1967 the local authority exercised their right to treat the contract as at an end. The contract price of the land was £2,250 and it had appreciated in value between 1965 and the date of rescission, 13th November 1967. In was held by Brightman J. that it was the solicitor's duty on receiving the contract from the local authority either to supply a copy to the clients or to inform them of the exchange of contracts and the date thereof. It was also their duty to warn the plaintiffs of what was needed in order to obtain a conveyance of the land and that they were in danger of losing the con- tract if they failed to commence building. Damages for negligence were assessed at £4,250 with costs being the difference between the contract price and the value of the land at the date of rescission. 61

One hundred years THE KING'S INNS COMMISSION OF INQUIRY Lond Monck and Mr. Lefanu, two of the commissioners appointed to carry out the above inquiry (the third commissioner, Mr. George A. Hamilton, was absent through indisposition) met at two o'clock on Friday, at No. 3 Lower Ormond-quay, and opened the business of the commission. Mr. Palles, Q.G., Mr. Shackleton and Mr. G. Fitzgibbon, instructed by Mr. Goddard, appeared for the Society of Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland. Mr. O'Hanlon, Secretary to the Society of King's-Inns, appeared (in the absence of the Attorney- General), on behalf of that body, with Mr. Crozier, solicitor. Mr. M. J. Barry, Secretary to the Commission, read the warrant, which authorises the commissioners : To inquire into and report upon the total amount of the sums received by "the Honourable Society of the King's Inns, Dublin, upon the admission of attorneys and solicitors, as deposits for chambers, and in what manner the same or any part thereof has been applied and disposed of, and whether any and what portion of the amount remains unappropriated to the purposes for which it was received, and whether the Incorporated Society of Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland are in possession of suitable buildings for the accommodation of that branch of the profession of which they are the governing body. Mr. Palles, Q.C., stated on the part of the Society of Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland that the inquiry would be of a limited character, and after a short adjournment the business might probably conclude with one sitting. From 1793 to 1866—when the Society of Attorneys and Solicitors obtained their charter—the King's Inns Society had received from each attorney admitted a sum of ten guineas "as deposit for chambers". In the petition upon which the commission had issued, it was stated that the King's Inns Society had received £53,821 and the money that had been received in this way had certainly never been applied to its original purpose. But he understood that the King's Inns Society In the case of Stinchcombe and Cooper Ltd. v Addison, Cooper Jessen and Co. the plaintiffs agreed to purchase certain land from a local authority. The land was required for the purpose of development. The contract signed on behalf of the purchasers was sent by their solicitors to the local authority in July 1964. It provided that completion should take place within fourteen days of the date on which building should have been sub- stantially commenced but, if not so commenced within twelve months from the date of the contract, the ven- dors were entitled to rescind and to revoke the building licence. The completed copies of the contract duly executed were exchanged in July 1964. On July 17th the purchaser's solicitors sent a draft conveyance to the local authority but nothing happened thereafter until 11th June 1965. During that period the plaintiffs had made a number of enquiries by telephone as to the posi- tion but their solicitors had omitted to inform them that the contracts had been exchanged and accordingly the

Contracts of Local Authorities- Negligence through Delay