Back
TIMES OF CEYLON Co. v. LOW
NLR16V434
1913 Present: Wood Renton A.C.J. and Ennis J.
TIMES OF CEYLON CO. v. LOW.
361-C. R. Colombo, 36,111.
Proxy in favour of a proctor and his two assistants not working in
partnership-Civil Procedure Code, s.27.
A proxy in favour of several proctors trading in partnership is good.
The appointment by a single proxy of two or more proctors not constituting a
firm and not standing in any professional relationship to each other as the
proctors of one and the same client is open to objection. But there is no
objection to the appointment of a proctor and one or more qualified assistants
in the same proxy.
The Supreme Court directed the proxy in this case to be amended to show on the
face of it that two out of the three proctors were assistants of the other.
THE
facts appear from the judgment.
Hayley, for plaintiffs, appellants.-The section of the Code relating to the
appointment of proctors is section 27. It does not make any reference to
proctors practising in partnership. Yet no objection has ever been taken to a
single proxy being granted to proctors practising in partnership. The singular,
" a proctor," is used in section 27. But the singular includes the plural-see
Interpretation Ordinance. The form in the Code (Form 7) indicates that several
proctors may be appointed by one proxy.
If partners may file a single proxy, there is nothing in principle which would
make the present proxy bad. The fact that a senior proctor instead of sharing
the profits gives a monthly salary does not make any difference in principle.
The filing of proxies like the present, when there are several Courts where the
proctors may have to appear at almost the same time, is an advantage, both from
the point of view of the Court and the practitioners.
The case relied on by the Commissioner of requests, Letchimanan v. Christian,1
does not decide the question now before the Court. In that case one proctor
appointed another proctor by proxy to appear for him.
Counsel also referred to Habibu Lebbe v. Punchi Ettena,2 Rossiter v.
Elphinstone 3
Stanley Obeyesekere, C.C., amicus curiae.-If several proctors are allowed to
file one proxy in their favour, the Government would be
Foot notes:
1 (1898) 4 N. L. R. 323.
2 (1894) 3 C. L. R. 84.
3 (1881) S. C. C. 53.
defrauded of the stamp revenue. [Ennis J.--How is the Government defrauded?]
Counsel referred to section 6 of the Stamp Ordinance. [Ennis J.-But that refers
to several distinct matters contained in one document. This is one appointment.]
The schedule to the Stamp Ordinance contemplates a single proctor, and
prescribes a stamp duty for that. In the case of a partnership there is only one
person.
Each proctor may tax his costs when several appear for one client; there is
nothing to prevent that. The responsibility would be divided, and the Court
cannot hold any one of them responsible for any act.
Hayley, in reply.-A firm of proctors are not a legal entity. They are separate
proctors in the eye of the law. All the objections urged will apply with equal
force to a firm of proctors.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 16, 1913. WOOD RENTON A.C.J.-
This case has been referred by my brother Ennis to a Bench of two Judges. It
involves an important question of practice. The plaintiffs-appellants, the Times
of Ceylon Company, Limited, sue the defendant for the recovery of a sum of Rs.
8.55 on a money claim. Their plaint is signed by Mr. Hislop. Their proxy is made
out in the names of Mr. Osmund Tonks, Mr. R. W. Hislop, and Mr. Hellard, "
Proctors of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon, jointly and severally."
The statement of account forwarded to the defendant is signed by Mr. Hellard.
The learned Commissioner of Requests refused to accept the plaint: in the
present form, and returned it to be amended within seven days by the deletion of
the names of two proctors, and the attachment of the proxy in favour of the one
who was retained
