The Gazette 1972

Road traffic prosecutions Members drew attention to a case in which they had submitted a full report to the Hibernian Insurance Go. and requested the fee of £10.50 agreed between the Society and a number of the Accident Offices Association and published in a recent issue of the Society's Gazette. The insurance company concerned refused to pay more than the fee of £7.35. It was decided that as the Hibernian Insurance Co. has no agreement with the Society the Council would not intervene. Members' claim for costs is against their own client. They are not obliged to furnish a report for an insurance company unless they are instructed to do so by the client and on payment of the proper charges either by the client or by the insurance company. Mortgagee's solicitor's costs The attention of the Council was drawn to a case in which the costs of the mortgagee's solicitor on the granting of a loan for the purchase of a dwelling calcu- lated at the lending institutions rate of per cent would in fact exceed the permitted scale charges having regard to the amount of the loan. The Council on a report from a committee were of the opinion that the mortgagee's solicitor would not be entitled to more than the commis- sion scale fee under the Solicitors Remuneration General Orders, 1884 to 1964. Further representations have since been received which are under consideration by the committee. Search fee The will of a testator drawn over thirty years ago was lodged to obtain a grant of administration with will annexed. The grant was refused and the papers were filed away. The principal of the firm has since died and the practice was taken over by his son who transferred to Dublin. The opinion of the Council was sought as to whether in the circumstances a fee could be charged for searching and handing over the will. The Council replied in the negative. Planning—Housing Act, 1969 Members drew attention to a case in which a client who resided in a block of four suburban houses and feared the adjoining house would be demolished to pro- vide access to a site at the rear of the house. The Housing Act does not provide for any objections to be made to applications for demolition under that Act and the local authority has declined to give the solicitors notice of any application that may be received. In view of the speed with which premises can be demolished an injunction will not provide an adequate remedy. The committee reported that they had noted a letter from the Department of Local Government which stated that an applicant for permission for change of use or demoli- tion under the Housing Act, 1969, is not obliged by the Act to publicise his intention in the» matter and neither is there any obligation under the local authority to do so. In granting a permission under the Act it is open to the local authority to impose a condition requiring the taking of such reasonable steps in relation to the demolition work as will ensure that the work either while being carried out or when completed with neither cause injury to any adjoining or adjacent building nor interfere with the stability thereof. The Council on a report from a committee were of the opinion that the matter is not one in which the Society can take any action and that indi- vidual owners must take the appropriate action to pro- tect their own interests.

Standard conditions of sale Members referred to Clause 29 of the Society's private treaty contract enabling the vendor to resell for breach of any condition by the vendor. They have always assumed that this condition would not affect the neces- sity of twenty-one days notice making time of the essence. Recently they learned of colleagues who are under the impression that the terms of this clause make it possible to forfeit a deposit without notice. The matter was referred to counsel who replied that he had never heard of any solicitor attempting to resell without first having made time of the essence by an appropriate notice which would usually refer to the provisions of Condition 31 but if any of the Society's members are under the impression that Condition 31 enables them to forfeit without deposit it would be well to remove this impression at the earliest opportunity. Once there has been failure to comply with the notice it is not strictly necessary to give further notice of intention to resell but a prudent solicitor would usually do so. Until time thus has been made of the essence and the purchaser has made default in complying with the notice he has not in law failed to comply with any of the conditions and Condition 31 cannot be relied on. 25th NOVEMBER 1971 The President in the chair, also present, Messrs W. B. Allen, Walter Beatty, Bruce St. J. Blake, John Carrigan, Anthony E. Collins, Laurence Cullen, Gerard M. Doyle, Joseph L. Dundon, James R. C. Green, Gerald Hickey, Michael P. Houlihan, Francis J. Lanigan, Eunan McCarron, John Maher, Patrick C. Moore, Senator John J. Nash, George A. Nolan, Patrick Noonan, Peter E. O'Connell, Thomas V. O'Connor, Patrick F. O'Donnell, James W. O'Donovan, William A. Osborne, Peter D. M. Prentice, Mrs. Moya Quinlan, Robert McD Taylor, Ralph J. Walker, David R. Pigot, Patrick J. McEllin, Thomas Jackson, Christopher Hogan, John C. O'Carroll. The following was among the business transacted. Motion for judgment—duty of a solicitor to notify opponent In the particular circumstances of the case submitted the Council adopted a report from a committee stating that the solicitor concerned for the plaintiff committed a breach of etiquette in failing to notify the solicitors for the defendant of his instructions to proceed on a motion for judgment. The committee also disapproved of the solicitor's failure to consent to late filing of the defence in the circumstances of the case. They also directed that the alleged failure of the solicitor for the plaintiff to reply to a letter requesting a letter consenting to late filing of a defence should be referred to the Registrar's Committee for their directions. Housing Act, 1966, Sections 90-92. Registration of vesting documents A member wrote to the Society referring to Section 90 of the Act under which a Housing Authority may sell a dwelling to a tenant by means of a vesting order. Section 92 requires that the order shall be registered with the Land Registry. Members state that such orders are being prepared by clerks in the service of local authorities and transmitted by them to the Land Registry for registration and were of the opinion that this is an offence under Section 58 of the Solicitors Act, 1954. It was decided that a letter should be sent to each county manager informing him of the practice and of the Council's view of the legal position whereby such action is illegal.

4