SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15017, 11 July 1914, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

• GOUGH v. THE KING. la the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon, his Honour' Mr Justice bua gavo judgment in the case i nomas Uoii&n (Mr Hunter) r. the lvm S tflr Hμ Honour said:—The.suppliant has filed a petition under tho Crown buit* •\ct 190S, in which ho alleges that iie was omptovod in September last as a labourer by tho Public Works Department of the Government of >>ow Zealand at tho railway tunnel works at Ofcira. While so employed he sustained injuries, it is alleged, through the negligence of certain fellow-workers, it is admitted that the suppliant is entitled to recover compensation .in respect of theso injuries under the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act, 1906. and if section 8 of the Crown Suite Amendment Act, 1910, had remained in force, tbc suppliant it is clear, would not have been entitled to make any claim in respect of his injuries against his Majesty under the Crown Suits Act. That section, however, was repealed l>y section 13 of the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1913, -which canro into force on tho loth of December, I'Jl3. This section was in force ivhon tho suppliant was injured, and his rights must be determined by reference to the law as it then existed, unless section 13 of the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1913, is to have a retrospective operation. Tho general rule is that, unless otherwise expressly provided, a statute is not to have a retrospective operation, especially when the rights and liabilities of parties are thereby altered. There is nothing, in my opinion, to justify the Court in giving such a construction to the.section in question, and the suppliant, therefore, is not on titled to maintain his present claim." The claim was withdrawn. AN ACCOUNT CASE. Judgment was also entered in tho case of Parsons and another (Mr Huntor) v. F. A. Anderson, Frederick Wilding, and Walter M. Ollivier (Mr H. D. Acland). The judgment said:— "This is an action for accounts in connexion with certain mortgage securities exceuted by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. It has been j proved, I think, that accounts were settled between the parties on the 24th of July, 1913, and again on tho 21st of November, 1913. Tho question to bo determined is whether tho plaintiffs have made out a case for having these accounts reopened. Mr Wilding, one of the defendants, is a solicitor, and his firm acted as solicitors for tho mortgagees in connexion with the transactions in question. In the case of several of theso mortgages Mr Wilding himself was one of tho mortgagees. His firm charged profit costs against the plaintiffs in connexion with theso mortgages, and these costs have been included in the accounts settled by the parties. Now it has been decided that a solicitor is not entitled to charge profit costs for the preparation of a mortgage to himself, and this rule applies although tjie solicitor is only one of two mortgagees, and although ho is only a member of the firm of solicitors who prepared the mortgage. "It has been held that the partner of the mortgagee solicitor ought to be allowed the same share of the profit costs in the specific matter as he was entitled to in'the general profits of the partnership business. This rule ought to be applied, I think, iit the present case. The result is that the charge of profit costs against the mortgagors is improper so far.as relates to Mr Wilding's share of these costs in connexion with the transactions in.which he was himself one of the mortagees, but not in. connexion with the transactions in. which Mr Ollivier was the solo mortgagee. The plaiutiffs have established therefore, that an error has been made in the settled accounts in connexion with the costs oharged against them. It was not suggested that the plaintiffs were ever informed that Mr Wilding was not entitled to claim profit costs, and , it is clear, I think, that they did not know it. In these circumstances the case of Cheese v. King (1908) 1 Oh. 245 is an authority for holding that tho plaintiffs are not bound by tho settled accounts, and are entitled to have them reopened. An order is made for taking the accounts. It will not be necessary to have them re-opened from the beginning, and the order will be tho same cc that made in Oheeeo v. King, viz., tbat the plaintiffs_eliall be at liberty to surcharge and accounts* furnished- to them by Messrs Wilding and Acland, on behalf of the defendants, and to have taxation of the costs charged in feuch accounts upon the footing that Mr Wilding was not entitled to charge for his share~of profit costs in respect of any mortgages m which he was one of the • mortagees. The further consideration of the action is adjourned, 1 and all questions of costs are reserved. Leave is reserved to any party to apply to tho Court or a Judge in Chambers, as ho may be advised.