The Gazette 1976

March 1976

RECENT ENGLISH CASES

put her case properly against fellow solicitors. The substance of her complaints was that she had been led to believe that the clerk was a solicitor; that, instead of County Court proceedings which would have been completed speedily at a low cost, High Court proceed- ings had been instituted without her knowledge and consent and had proved far more costly than she ever contemplated; and that the solicitors had not exercised due skill and care in the conduct of the action so that almost a year after it was begun she had only an interim injunction which had proved worthless as a protec- tion against the man's molestation. The County Court Judge found that most of her com- plaints were well founded and amounted to absence of reasonable care and skill and that she was entitled to damages. He awarded her as damages the £175 she had paid as costs, less £7 for the initial action over the £40 debt; but he said that she should not recover any further sum in respect of damages. On appeal by the plaintiff in person : Held, allowing the appeal, that the plaintiff was entitled to a total of £293 as damages in respect of the solicitors' breach of contract by their negligent conduct of the litigation on her behalf; that those damages should include (a) repayment of the costs paid which had been thrown away in the abortive proceedings for the injunction (per Lord Denning M.R., as money paid on a consideration which had wholly failed), and also (b) a sum to compensate her for the vexation, anxiety and distress and the continued molestation, which were the direct and foreseeable consequences of the solici- tors' failure to obtain the relief which it was the sole purpose of the injunction proceedings to secure; but (c) that as the law stood she could not recover any damages as compensation for her own work and the strain involved in conducting an action against solicitors. Heywood v. Wellers (a firm) — Court of Appeal — (Lord Denning M.R., James and Bridge L.JJ.). — (1976) 2.W.L.R. 101. James J. Ivers, Esq., Di rector-( Jeneral. Dear Sir, The Probate Judge has given a direction in the following terms, viz. : "Where any application is made in the Probate Office or any District Probate Registry for a Grant of Administration with Will annexed or Intestate, in which an affidavit of market value is required in respect of a particular piece of property, such affidavit must show, to the satisfaction of the Probate Officer or District Probate Registrar, what the market value of such property would be as at the date of swearing the affidavit. This amount must be secured by the Bond of the Administrator and his or her sureties." Yours sincerely, P. Waldron (Probate Officer). CORRESPONDENCE The High Court (Probate Office), Four Courts, Dublin 7. 11th March 1976.

Twelve months suspension of practice is sufficient pen- alty for solicitor who does not renew his practising certificate. Appeal from the disciplinary committee of the English Law Society. A solicitor, who had been fined by the Law Society for conduct unbefitting a solicitor, subsequently allowed his practising certificate to lapse. Because of his pre- vious fine the Law Society required his application for renewal to be accompanied by letters from two solicitors vouching for his fitness to practise. He failed to renew his certificate despite repeated reminders from the Law Society and continued practising as a solicitor. In July 1975 he was found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society of practising without a current certificate and he was struck off the Solicitors' Roll. He appealed against the penalty imposed. Lord Widgery CJ. said that the solicitor was embar- rassed by the need to obtain letters from two solicitors and had been reluctant to disclose his past. The com- mittee thought that he had shown such a degree of irresponsibility by his conduct that it was inappropriate that he should practise as a solicitor. The Court rarely interfered with the committee's discretion on matters of penalty but there were exceptions. If a solicitor was struck off for practising without a certificate there would be no suitable penalty left for the more serious offences concerning clients' money. The penalty was too severe and would be reduced to twelve months' suspension. Kilner Brown and Watkins JJ. agreed. Appeal allowed. In re A Solicitor — QBD — Lord Widgery CJ, Kilner Brown and Watkins J J. — 4 February 1976. In October 1972 the plaintiff, a woman, who wanted legal advice on how best to put an end to persistent pestering by a former man friend, went to a local solici- tor's office with the object of having a letter written to the man requiring repayment of a debt of £40. She was seen by a young unqualified litigation clerk whom she believed to be a solicitor. He suggested that she might apply to the local County Court for an injunction against the man and that it would cost about £25 and take about three weeks. She did not then instruct the clerk to do more than write the letter about the £ 4 0: but the reply was so abusive of her and was followed by the man's coming to her house and threatening her that she instructed the clerk to apply for the suggested injunction and she paid the estimated £25. During the next eleven months the clerk initiated proceedings in the High Court which, because of errors and omissions, proved wholly ineffective, for the plain- tiff continued to be molested by the man. When she had paid £175 and was asked to pay a further £100 towards the costs totalling £446, she instructed the firm in February 1974 to drop the case. In March 1974 she issued a plaint in the County Court, claiming £170 of the costs actually paid and £150 for "damages and expenses". She prepared and conducted her own case, being of opinion that it would be impossible to find other local solicitors who would Client awarded costs paid to solicitor who did not pursue action, and compensation for distress and continuous molestation.

38