Tale of two solicitors
Sir: Mr Auberon Waugh is less than fair in his innuendo (18 September) that Mr John Bosomworth, the solicitor for Mr and Mrs Tom Danby, was responsible for the in- convenience and delay suffered by his fellow solicitor Mr Langdale in litigation against Mr and Mrs Danby. Readers who are not subscribers to the Law Reports ought to know that: (1) Counsel conducting the case
before the trial judge, Mr Justice Oliver (not a County Court judge, as Mr Waugh says), had expressly disclaimed any sugges- tion that Mr Danby's contract with Mr Langdale was in ailY way unfair or unconscionable; (2) Mr Bosomworth appears to have thought that that concession ought not to have been made, and sought other advice on his client's behalf;
(3) Experienced leading and junior counsel practising in the Chancery Division came to the conclusion that the question of unfairness was arguable and in fact sought to argue it before the Court of Appeal;
(4) The criticism of the Court of Appeal by the House of Lords (who unanimously agreed with Lord Bridge's speech) was that they followed a note on the Prec" tice as to admitting further evidence in this type of case which had appeared in the books on practice since 1912: the House considered that the note was wrong and that the practice of admitting further evidence on appeal must stop unless there are special grounds for allowing it
All lawyers are entitled to plead that they
are acting in their• client's interests if the OP cusation of partisanship is made. That defence is not available to journalists. Is Mr Waugh also guilty of `Pilgerism'?
R. M. De Lacy
I New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2
Previous page
