The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

JULY-AUGUST

1

"In cases of judgments for a liquidated demand under O. 37, when no step has been taken by the defendant after appearance, there shall, unless the Court shall otherwise order, be added to the principal sum for which judgment is marked for costs, the same sums as are hereinbefore respectively allowed in case of judgment by default of appearance, together with such further costs of the motion for judgment as the Court may allow." O. 99, r. 39 of the R.S.C. provides that: "In all cases of judgment by default of appearance for a liquidated demand, where the plaintiff is entitled to costs, there shall be added to the principal sum for which the judgment is marked the respective sum for costs set out in Appendix W, Part (111)." The affidavit grounding the Plaintiffs' motion for the order sought in their notice of motion averred that the Master had limited the order for costs on the amount of the judgment to outlays and counsel's fee on the grounds that the law agent of the Plaintiffs and other members of the Plaintiffs' law department were salaried employees of the Plaintiffs and that the law agent and the law department did not constitute an independent firm of solicitors. Having expressed dissatisfaction that the Court was being asked to decide a question of principle arising on an application without having had the assistance of argument on behalf of the Defendant and being also obliged to assume the reasons under- lying the limitation on costs imposed by the Master's Order, the Court reviewed a number of cases opened to it by Plaintiffs' counsel and the relevant statutes. Section 4 of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870(33 and 34 Vic. C. 28) provides that a solicitor may make an agreement in writing with his client in regard to the amount ana manner of payment of fees, charges or disbursements in respect of professional business done or to be done by such solicitor which may provide for payment either by a gross sum or by commission or percentage or by salary and either at the same or a greater or lesser rate as or than the rate at which he would otherwise be

of the employed contributor in the space indicated for that purpose upon the card." Held (per Hamilton J.) that the amount claimed was not due by the Company as a contribution under the Social Welfare Acts but was merely due in respect of the purchase of insurance stamps which could be used for the payment of contribu- tions under the said Acts, and that, therefore the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was not entided to the priority afforded by Section 285 (2) of the Compahies Act 1963 and must rank in the liquidation as an ordinary unsecured creditor. In the matter of Palgrave Murphy Limited and In the matter of the Companies Act 1963 — High Court (per Hamilton J.) — 20 February 1979 - unreported. Costs — liquidated demand — Solicitor for Plaintiffs (a bank) a salaried solicitor — Master's Order to enter final judgment limiting plaintiffs' costs to outlay and counsel's fees — application to High Court to discharge Master's Order limiting costs and substituting an Order allowing full costs — Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870, sections 4 and 5. This was an application to a judge of the High Court seeking an order pursuant to O. 63, r. 9 of the Rules of the Superior Counts (R.S.C.) - (1) discharging an order made by the Master of the High Court giving liberty to enter final judgment for a liquidated demand, in so far as the form of such order limited the costs awarded to the plaintiffs to outlay and counsel's fees; and, (2) substitut- ing for the said Master's Order an order awarding the full costs, including profit costs, of the proceed- ings to the Plaintiffs. The order made by the Master on 25 May, 1979, gave the Plaintiffs liberty to enter final judgment for £3,864.74 on foot of a Summary Summons and also for costs on that amount, such costs to be taxed and "to be limited to outlay and counsel's fee". O. 99, r. 43 of the R.S.C. provides that: PRACTICE - SOLICITORS 4 COSTS

RECENT IRISH CASES Summaries of judgments prepared by John F. Buckley, E. Rory O'Connor, Barry O'Neill, Peter Quinlan and edited by Michael V. O'Mahony.

COMPANY LAW - LIQUIDATION

Purchase of social welfare insurance stamps in bulk does not constitute the payment of the "weekly employ- ment contribution" under Social Welfare Acts 1952/61, and cost of these stamps not qualified for preferential treatment under Section 285 of Companies Act 1963. During the period between 6 May and 11 November 1970 Palgrave Murphy Limited ("the Company") purchased social insurance stamps at a number of post offices and paid for them by cheques totalling £3,947.68. On 19 November 1970 the Company was placed in liquidation and none of the relevant cheques were paid. It was claimed by the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that the amount unpaid qualified for preferen- tial treatment under Section 285 of the Companies Act 1963. It was submitted on behalf of the Ministers that the employer makes contributions to the Department of Social Welfare through the Depart- ments of Posts and Telegraphs and as evidence of such contributions he receives stamps which can be stuck upon the employee's insurance cards. After full consideration of relevant sections of the Social Welfare Act 1952 and of Statutory Instrument No. 382 of 1952, entitled Social Welfare (Powers in relation to Insurance Stamps) Order 1952, and S.I. No. 381 of 1952, entitled Social Welfare (Collection of Contribu- tions) Regulations 1952, the Court referred specifically to Article 11(1) of the latter S.I., which provided as follows: "Every weekly employment contribution payable under the Act shall, except as otherwise provided in these Regulations, be paid by the affixing of an insurance stamp of the appro- priate value to the insurance card