Law Society v United Service Bureau Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1934 |
| Year | 1934 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Solicitor - Pretending to be a Solicitor - Pretence by unqualified person - Body corporate -
Sect. 46 of the Solicitors Act, 1932, provides that “any person, not having in force a practising certificate, who wilfully pretends to be …. qualified …. to act as a solicitor” shall be liable to a penalty.
The words “any person” in this section do not include a body corporate, such as a limited company, and a body corporate cannot, therefore, be convicted of an offence under the section.
Pharmaceutical Society v. London & Provincial Supply Association, Ld. (
Quaere, per Lawrence J., whether a company could legally be formed to carry on the business of a solicitor.
CASE stated by Metropolitan magistrate.
At a court of summary jurisdiction held at Marlborough Street Police Court, London, the appellants, the Law Society, preferred two informations against the respondents, a limited company, named United Service Bureau, Ld., under s. 46 of the Solicitors Act, 1932F1, charging the respondents with having wilfully pretended to be qualified, or recognized by law as qualified, to act as solicitors.
The respondents did not have in force a practising certificate under s. 43F1 of the Act.
The magistrate held that the words “any person” in s. 46 did not include a limited company such as the respondents, and he therefore dismissed the information.
The appellants appealed.
Roland Burrows K.C. and W. M. Andrew for the appellants. The Solicitors Act, 1932, has to be read in the light of ss. 2 and 19 of the
For the purpose of a charge of “wilfully pretending to be a solicitor” it does not matter whether the “person” is a company or an individual. The Act was passed for the protection of the public, and especially of the ignorant section of the public, who would not know that the qualifications of a solicitor were such as to exclude a company. There is, it is true, some authority for the proposition that, if a statute contains a prohibition subject to a condition which can only be fulfilled by an individual and not by a corporation, the prohibition itself strikes at individuals and not corporations. But here the words “not having in force a practising certificate” are redundant, for a person who has a practising certificate could not pretend to be that which in fact he is. In Pharmaceutical Society v. London & Provincial Supply Association, Ld.F2 it was held that a company, one of whose members only was a qualified person, was not liable to a penalty under s. 1 of the
There is in the Solicitors Act, 1932, ground for saying that it was the policy of the Legislature that all profits made by persons acting as solicitors should be received by duly qualified solicitors, and that no one else should intermeddle with that kind of business. The law of champerty and maintenance also shows that purpose. If that were not so, a company might be formed, all the shareholders in which might be unqualified persons, and no legal steps could be taken to prevent it, unless, perhaps, they actually assumed conduct of an action, when they might be subject to proceedings for contempt.
Where a statute absolutely prohibits an act, then a company may be liable for the acts of the individual who does the prohibited act in its name: Mousell Bros., Ld. v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co.F3 The mischief of the Solicitors Act, 1932, being to protect the public from being deceived into thinking that they are dealing with a qualified person, when in fact they are not, the Act applies equally whether the unqualified person is a corporation or an individual. It is not till the year 1933 that it is suggested that a company can act as a solicitor or be “covered” by a solicitor, who may walk with head erect, while if the person “covered” had been one of the shareholders in the company the solicitor would have been struck off the Roll compulsorily.
Strauss for the respondents. The real question is whether “a contrary intention appears” within the meaning of s. 2 of the
It is obvious from the terms of s. 46 itself that it does not apply to a company, since it refers to “not having in force a practising certificate,” a thing which it is impossible for a company to have. In s. 51, too, “person”...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kesultanan Pahang v Sathask Realty Sdn Bhd
-
David Hughes v Worldport Communications Inc.
...ACT 1990 S150(3) COMPANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT 2001 S41 BRIGGS v GIBSON'S BAKERY LTD 1948 NI 165 LAW SOCIETY v UNITED SERVICE BUREAU LTD 1934 1 KB 343 COMPANY LAW Directors Shadow directors - Restriction order - Whether body corporate could be shadow director for purposes of application for ......
-
Attorney-General v Antigua Times Ltd
...Canal Traffic Cases 266. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organisation (1939) 307 U.S. 496. Law Society v. United Service Bureau Ltd. [1934] 1 K.B. 343. Northwestern Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs (1906) 203 U.S. 243; (1906) 27 S.Ct.R. 126. Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supp......
-
Kanat Shaikhanovich Assaubayev and Others (Claimants v Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd (Defendant
...to me at least arguable that the reason why there is no such declaration lies in the decision of the Divisional Court in Law Society v United Services Bureau Ltd [1934] 1 KB 343, where it was held that s 46 of the Solicitors Act 1932 (a predecessor of section 21 of the 1974 Act) had no appl......