HUGE LEGAL FEES

Hokitika Guardian, 14 February 1931, Page 3

HUGE LEGAL FEES

— A ( ASF FOR AKBJ’I RATION. LONDON. December 19. An important ni ,o;rr.-.on is no.v being conducted in tiie strictest privacy in the Old Hall of Lincoln's Inn (writes a correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph”). It was interrupted some weeks ago to enable Sir John Simon, K.C., t • ((induct the Ii 101 enquiry. The claimants are understood to be Siemens and Hulske (Berlin) Aktien Gesellschaft, electrical manufacturers, and the respondents the Standard Telephone and Cables, Ltd. Viscount Hailsham is acting as umpire, with Lord Ashfiehl and Sir John Sandema.il Allen, ALP., as arbitrators. The case has excited much comment in legal circles for a variety of reasons. One is the unprecedented magnitude of the fees paid to counsel The two leaders on their respective sides. Sir John Simon. K.C., and Mr Wilfred Greene, K.C., are receiving 10,000 guineas each. For a case heard in London that figure has never been approached, and it indicates sufficiently the immense interests that are at stake.

Sir John Simon is being assisted by Air Vaughan Williams. K. 0., and Afr F. W. Wallace. With Afr Wilfred Greene is associated Air F. R. Evershed. Their fees are naturally proportionate to those of their leaders. It is also understood that the umpire, Lord Hailsham, is receiving .10.000 guineas. POSITION OF FA-LORD CHANCELLOR. His acceptance of the nost, caused much surprise, because ex-Lord Chancellors have hitherto made a point of refusing to conduct, arbitrations. The reason is that their findings may he made the subject of later appeal to the House of Lords—appeal, that is to say. not on fact hut on law. Tn the present case the flank of this objection lias been ingeniously turned by both parties agreeing on all points of law as well as on facts. The propriety of this is being freely canvassed.

There is said to bo only one doubtful nrocedcnt- in support of tbe course taken by Lord Hailsham, and tbe fo*. is exoressed that wlmt today is only justified by a dubious example, will itself take rank as a strong precedent foi* tlm future. Another objection is raised. A\ hat would happen, it is asked, if the present Government were suddenly defeated and Lord Hailsham wore invited to resume tbe Lord Chancellorship ? H (> would either have to resign from this arbitration—which would inv Ivo the parties in enormous and undeserved loss or, if he declined the Woolsack, tlm taxpayer would lie unwarrantably mulcted by tbe unnecessary appointment of a new Lord Chancellor, and the Conservative Government would he deprived of Lord Hailsham’s invaluable services.