There was a claim that there had been a breach of section 2 of the 1843 Act by law stationers (who had had various dealings with the Probate registry under the supervision of solicitors). The Rules of the Probate Court required applications for probate to be made, if not by the executor, then by a proctor, solicitor or attorney.
Held: If some step in a proceeding is required to be done only by the party or his solicitor, then if that step is taken by an unqualified person (not being the party), that person will necessarily be acting as a solicitor within the meaning of section 2 of the 1843 Act. such an application was ‘a solicitor’s or proctor’s business’. The claim was dismissed. The stationers were simply executing instructions to do ministerial acts in order to save the real solicitor from the trouble and expense of doing them: they had not been practising as solicitors themselves. In considering whether there had been a breach of section 2, the House of Lords proceeded on the footing that to act as a solicitor is to do what may only be done by a qualified practitioner. Lord Bramwell: ‘I am of the opinion that they have not; and I am of opinion that they have not because they have not; and really that is the only answer which one can give . . ‘
Lord Bramwell
(1883) 8 App Cas 407
Solicitors Act 1843 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Andre Agassi v S Robinson (H M Inspector of Taxes) (No 2) CA 2-Dec-2005
The taxpayer had been represented in proceedings throughout by tax law experts, Tenon Media, who were not legally admitted, but had a right to conduct litigation under the 1990 Act. The Inspector objected to paying costs as if the representatives . .
[2005] EWCA Civ 1507, Times 22-Dec-05
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 December 2020; Ref: scu.237581 br>
The post The Law Society of the United Kingdom v Waterlow Brothers and Layton: HL 1883 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.