The Act 23 and 24 Vict. c. 127, enacts, sec. 28-‘In every case in which an attorney or solicitor shall be employed to prosecute or defend any suit, matter, or proceeding in any court of justice, it shall be lawful for the court . . to declare such attorney or solicitor entitled to a charge upon the property recovered or preserved; and upon such declaration being made, such attorney or solicitor shall have a charge upon and against and a right to payment out of the property . . for the taxed costs, . . and it shall be lawful for such court or judge to make such order or orders for taxation of such costs, charges, and expenses out of the said property as to such court or judge shall appear just and proper; and all conveyances and acts done to defeat, or which shall operate to defeat, such charge or right shall, unless made to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, be absolutely void and of no effect as against such charge or right.’
North, a domiciled Englishman, was sued in the Queen’s Bench Division by Welsh, a domiciled Scotsman, but in April 1887 obtained decree for expenses. On May 26th Stewart arrested in the hands of Welsh the sum due under the decree, and next day served a summons on North. On June 13th North’s solicitors in the English suit obtained a charging order in terms of the above-cited Act, on the costs for which North had obtained decree.
Held ( aff. judgment of the First Division- diss. Lord Morris) that jurisdiction had been properly founded by arrestment when the summons was served, and was not affected by the charging order, even assuming that to be retrospective in its operation.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor Halsbury, and Lords Watson, Herschell, Macnaghten, and Morris
Citations:
[1890] UKHL 397, 28 SLR 397
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Jurisdiction
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636735
