Legal Professions - 1960- 1969

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 06 June 2013. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.

Addis -v- Crocker [1961] 1 QB 11
1961 CA Hodson LJ, Pearce LJ, Upjohn LJ	Legal Professions, Defamation
	The proceedings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal attract absolute privilege even though they sat in private.

Wilkinson -v- Wilkinson [1962] 3 WLR 1; [1963] P 1; [1962] 1 All ER 922
1962 CA	Legal Professions, Costs	1 Citers

In re Trepca Mines (No 2); CA 1962

Boulting -v- Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians; CA 1963

Attorney-General -v- Mulholland; CA 1963

Carl Zeiss Siftung -v- Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1965] Ch 596
1965 CA	Costs, Legal Professions	Casemap
	The Court having held that the plaintiff had not been competent to bring the action, regarded itself as having jurisdiction to make an award of costs against the plaintiff's solicitors.

Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court -v- K [1965] AC 201
1965 HL	Children, Legal Professions	Casemap
	Legal representatives of a party were entitled to have disclosed to them of 'behind the scenes' investigation in a care matter in which their client was involved, but should be requested to undertake not to pass on details to their client.

In re a Solicitor; 1966

In Re A Solicitor [1966] 1 WLR 1604
1966 Pennycuick J	Legal Professions	1 Citers
	A solicitor (Mr Lincoln) had given undertakings to hold certain leases to the order of the Bank, but did not have them. The court considered enforcement of the undertakings. Pennycuick J said: "Prima facie, it is open to Mr Lincoln to obtain that lease by paying off the first mortgage, in which case he would be entitled to require the first mortgagee to hand over the lease to him and he could then hand over the lease in turn to the Bank. There might, of course, be circumstances in which it would be difficult or impossible for him to achieve that result, but there is no evidence before me to show that any such difficulty or impossibility exists, and in the absence of any evidence it seems to me that I ought to proceed on the basis that Mr Lincoln is able to perform this undertaking."

Sanders -v- Parry [1967] 1 WLR 753
1967 Havers J	Legal Professions, Employment	Casemap 1 Citers
	An assistant employed by a sole practitioner undertook as part of his duties work brought in by an important client. The client having said that if he left to set up on his own account he would transfer his business, the assistant handed in his notice and did so. And the client did follow him. The sole practitioner sued for breach of the implied terms of the contract of employment that the assistant would serve him with good faith and fidelity. The defence was that it was the client who had initiated the arrangement. Held. It did not matter. Even were it to be so, the assistant having accepted the client's offer whilst he was still employed by another and not having informed his employer of the offer was in breach. Havers J said: "Now in my view there was a duty on the defendant at all times during the substance of the (employment) agreement to protect his master's interests, especially to do his best to retain Mr Tully as a client for his master .... I am satisfied that in accepting the offer, by such conduct the defendant was guilty of breach of duty in regard to the agreement implied therein by law that the defendant would serve the plaintiff with good faith and fidelity." and "In my view it was the duty of the defendant to have reported this dissatisfaction of the secretary to his principal to give him an opportunity, as far as he could, to satisfy her. Instead of forwarding his principal's interests he was concerned only in promoting his own. He made this alternative offer to Mrs Stanford which she accepted and the result of it and the result of that alone was that she left Mr Sanders and joined the defendant. That was in my view a breach of contract"

Rondel -v- Worsley; HL 1967

In re Duncan, decd, Garfield -v- Fay; 1968

Adlam -v- Law Society [1968] 1 WLR 6
1968	Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers

Parry-Jones -v- The Law Society; CA 1969