Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Legal Professions - From: 1992 To: 1992

This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Loveday v Renton (No 2); 1992 - [1992] 3 All ER 184
 
Johnson v Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd [1992] 1 All ER 169
1992


Legal Professions, Costs
The costs principles set out in the Masters' Practice Notes and which endorsed the dual approach of assessing and adding an element to reflect the value at stake in litigation as well as the hourly expense rate of providing that service in all contentious work was applied.
1 Citers


 
Price Waterhouse v BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (1992) BCLC 583
1992
CA
Millett LJ
Legal Professions, Evidence
A claim for legal advice privilege was rejected for reports written by accountants both when the accountants were independent and when they reconstituted themselves as a committee of the client. However, legal advice privilege attaches to all communications made in confidence between solicitors and their clients for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice even at a stage when litigation is not in contemplation. It does not matter whether the communication is directly between the client and his legal adviser or is made through an intermediate agent of either.
1 Citers


 
Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd Gazette, 13 May 1992; [1992] Ch 560; [1992] 1 All ER 865
1992


Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
A solicitor will not usually be liable to a purchaser of land for a negligent misrepresentation given on behalf of a Vendor of land. The word "right" may have a wider meaning than an accrued right.
1 Citers


 
Re A Barrister (Wasted Costs Order); Re A (No 1 of 1991) [1993] QB 293; [1992] 3 All ER 429; [1992] 3 WLR 662; (1992) 95 Cr App R 288
1992
CA
Macpherson J
Legal Professions, Criminal Practice
The section provided that the Court could order a legal practitioner to pay "wasted costs", which were defined as costs incurred by a party "as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative". The barrister appealed against the order made. Held: The court adopted the practice of not naming barristers subject to applications for wasted costs orders.
The Court recommended a three-stage test or approach when contemplating an order under s.19A. Macpherson J said: "A three stage test or approach is recommended when a wasted costs order is contemplated.
(i) Has there been an improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission?
(ii) As a result have any costs been incurred by a party?
(iii) If the answers to (i) and (ii) are 'Yes,' should the court exercise its discretion to disallow or order the representative to meet the whole or any part of the relevant costs, and if so what specific sum is involved?"
. . And "There is a clear need for any judge or court intending to exercise the wasted costs jurisdiction to formulate carefully and concisely the complaint and ground upon which such an order may be sought. These measures are draconian, and, as in contempt proceedings, the grounds must be clear and particular."
rosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A
1 Citers


 
Giles v Thompson [1993] 3 All ER 321
1992
CA
Steyn LJ
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Costs
The interest that the rule of champerty exists to protect (the individual interest) is that of the opposite party. Steyn LJ described contingency fee agreements as "nowadays perhaps the most important species of champerty" and were "still unlawful". He added that, while champerty had not "wither[ed] away", its "scope . . has been shrunk greatly". The correct question was whether "in accordance with contemporary public policy, the agreement has in fact caused the corruption of public justice. The court must consider the tendency of the agreement."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Merck and Co v Interpharm [1992] 3 FC 774
1992

Giles ASP
Commonwealth, Legal Professions
(Federal Court of Canada) Giles ASP said: "Solicitor and client privilege is one of the basic principles which permit the operation of our justice system and public confidence in it. In order to support the public interest in the inviolability of the solicitor and client relationship the courts have imposed great inconvenience and have overridden without question personal rights such as the right of a person to choose his own counsel. In this case there is no suggestion that a lawyer who once acted for the defendant is now with the plaintiffs' firm. There is no suggestion of a solicitor and client relationship having been established between the defendants and anyone at Gowling's. The public interest in solicitor and client relationship is not engaged.
In my view the implied undertaking would be most impractical if it resulted in an ability to remove from a case any solicitor who was bound by an implied undertaking. The implied undertaking is not of sufficient public interest when balanced against the right of a party to choose his own solicitors and the public interest in the efficient administration of justice to require the court to disqualify any solicitor who might wrongly deploy information subject to the undertaking. If a solicitor fails to observe the undertaking the remedy is to cite him for contempt, not to remove him.
A lawyer who takes cases regularly must have acquired a great deal of information subject to implied undertakings. In these days of specialized education and long work hours for junior lawyers, it is possible that a significant percentage of a lawyer's general knowledge will have been acquired in his practice of law, there having been little other opportunity for him to acquire the same. It is equally possible that a large portion of that general knowledge will be subject to implied undertakings. If the defendant's submissions are correct, few lawyers who have been called for any length of time will be able to take part in litigation. It is to be remembered that the undertaking is to the Court and is not limited to deploying information in cases involving one or more of the same parties."
1 Citers



 
 In re a Company (No 0012209 of 1991); ChD 1992 - [1992] 2 All ER 797; [1992] 1 WLR 351; [1992] BCLC 865
 
K/S Norjarl A/S v Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd [1992] QB 863; [1991] 3 All ER 211; [1991] 3 WLR 1025
1992
CA
Legatt LJ
Arbitration, Legal Professions
A third arbitrator appointed by the arbitrators already appointed, accepted office on the basis that the hearing would take place by a specified date and would last for a specified period. Three years later, the plaintiffs’ solicitors requested the arbitrators to fix a period for the hearing over twice as long and in two further years’ time. The third arbitrator replied that the tribunal might consider this but that the parties should consider the fees likely to be incurred and he set out a statement of the fees chargeable including a non-refundable commitment fee payable in advance of the hearing. The defendants’ arbitrator took no part in the ensuing discussion of fees. The parties did not accept the proposal but invited its withdrawal. The third arbitrator and the plaintiffs’ arbitrator offered their resignations. The plaintiffs’ solicitors made a proposal acceptable to the arbitrators but sought an assurance that the defendants’ solicitors had no objection to the plaintiffs making the payments proposed. The defendants’ solicitors maintained that the two arbitrators had no power to demand advance fees; the fees were excessive, and that it was inappropriate for one party to pay the fees demanded to the two arbitrators. They did not allege partiality. They later wrote that both arbitrators should continue on the terms as appointed but withdrawing the new fees demand. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the arbitrators were fit and proper persons to act and that their acceptance of the plaintiffs’ fee arrangements would not raise any imputations of bias. The defendants applied for an order that the two arbitrators be removed. Held: For an arbitrator to insist upon a fee without the consent of all parties constitutes misconduct: "Any fee upon which (the arbitrators) wish to insist should be made known at the outset before acceptance of appointment."
However, the express disavowal by the defendants of any imputation of actual bias and their request that the arbitrators continue to act, precluded the exercise by the court of its discretion to remove them but, that the conclusion of an agreement between the arbitrators and the plaintiffs on the basis of the plaintiffs’ revised proposal would be improper. The majority took the view that by reason of the change in circumstances the request for a commitment fee was justified, that a mere request by an arbitrator for a commitment fee did not amount to misconduct and that, in any event, even if the entry by the arbitrators into separate negotiations with the plaintiffs for their fees amounted to misconduct, the express disavowal of bias and request of the arbitrators to continue to act precluded their removal.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Bateman Gazette, 29 April 1992
29 Apr 1992
QBD

Legal Aid, Legal Professions, Costs
A Legally Aided client had no locus standi to challenge the taxation of his own solicitors' costs bill.


 
 Barclays Bank Plc v Khaira and Another; ChD 6-May-1992 - Gazette, 06 May 1992; [1992] 1 WLR 623

 
 In Re A Solicitor; QBD 13-May-1992 - Gazette, 13 May 1992; [1993] QB 69

 
 Ashmore and Others v Corporation of Lloyds; HL 13-May-1992 - Gazette, 13 May 1992; [1992] 2 All ER 486; [1992] 1 WLR 446; [1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 1
 
Ex P H (A Barrister) Gazette, 24 June 1992
24 Jun 1992
CA

Legal Professions
Guidelines for procedures for courts to make wasted costs orders.
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (1991 No 789)


 
 Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Bruce; HL 9-Sep-1992 - Gazette, 09 September 1992
 
Napier and Ettrick v R F Kershaw Gazette, 09 September 1992
9 Sep 1992
CA

Insurance, Legal Professions
Money held by solicitors for names was subject to subrogation for insurers.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Master of Rolls ex parte Mckinnell Gazette, 16 September 1992; [1993] 1 WLR 88
16 Sep 1992
QBD

Legal Professions
The Law Society may appeal against a decision of the disciplinary tribunal.
Solicitors Act 1974 49(1)(a)
1 Citers


 
In Re A Debtor (No 1594 of 1992) Times, 08 December 1992
20 Nov 1992
ChD
Knox J
Legal Professions, Contract
A one-sided term inserted into a contract between solicitors and their clients by the solicitors was to be construed against the solicitors and in the client's favour where any ambiguity allowed this. The contra preferentem rule was to be applied.
1 Cites



 
 In Re A Debtor (No 88 of 1991); ChD 2-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 02 December 1992; [1993] Ch 286
 
Niemietz v Germany 13710/88; [1992] 16 EHRR 97; [1992] ECHR 80
16 Dec 1992
ECHR
Ryssdal, P
Human Rights, Legal Professions
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life. Held: In construing the term 'private life', "it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an 'inner circle' in which the individual may live his own personal life as he chooses and to exclude therefrom entirely the outside world not encompassed within that circle. Respect for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings." Article 8 should not be construed as necessarily excluding business activities. It protects the right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings, including relationships at work: "it is, after all, in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant, if not the greatest, opportunity of developing relationships with the outside world"
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Southampton Crown Court ex parte J and P [1993] Crim LR 962
21 Dec 1992

Watkins LJ, Auld LJ
Police, Legal Professions
A special material warrant was quashed, partly because it was too widely drawn. It was suspected that there had been thefts from the solicitor's firms client account. Watkins LJ discussed the need for a judge to give reasons for a decision under section 9 of the 1984 Act allowing the police to have access to special procedure materials: "The Act does not require a circuit judge to give reasons when making an order inter partes or issuing a warrant ex parte for access to special procedure material. However, challenges to decisions of circuit judges which have come before this Court demonstrate, in my opinion, especially as to ex parte applications, the need for this to be done. Reasons need not be elaborate, but they should be recorded and be sufficient to identify the substance of any relevant information or representation put before the judge in addition to the written information. They should set out what inferences he has drawn from the material relevant to the statutory conditions governing the content and form of the order or warrant sought. Where he has considered the question of legal privilege he should explain why, if he does, he has included in the order or warrant material which is prima facie privileged, or why he has excluded material as subject to privilege. In the latter case, where the excluded material consists of particular documents or categories of documents which might otherwise be included in the material to which access is given, he should explain why, if he does, he has included in the order or warrant material which is prima facie privileged, or why he has excluded material as subject to privilege. In the latter case, where the excluded material consists of particular documents or categories of documents which might otherwise be included in the material to which access is given, he should carefully describe and identify them in the order or warrant.
These requirements may seem onerous for the exercise of a power to which the police often seek recourse as a matter of urgency. But a Circuit Judge has a responsibility not only to assist the effective investigation of crime, but also to protect as needs be the holder of and the person in respect of whom he holds material in confidence from unjustified intrusion into their private affairs."
Auld LJ said: "the fact that a solicitor is himself under investigation is not of itself necessarily a sufficient reason for ordering such an intrusion into his affairs and those of his clients. All the circumstances of the individual application must be taken into account, including, for example, the seriousness of the matter being investigated, the evidence already available to the police to found a prosecution based on it, and the extent to which the solicitor has already been put on notice of interest on his affairs such as might have caused him to hide or destroy or otherwise interfere with incriminating documents."
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.