Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Tisany v. Attorney General of Gibraltar, 1874

[legal practitioners]

Tisany v. Attorney General of Gibraltar

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
23 June 1874
Source: The Times, 24 June, 1874

(Present - Sir J. Colville, Sir B. Peacock, Sir M. Smith, and Sir R. Collier.)
  This case, which was an appeal from the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, mentioned in The Times on the hearing, was now decided.
  The question was as to the purchase of a house at Gibraltar belonging to a Spanish lady by the appellant, who had been called to the Bar by the Inner Temple, and who was now a practising advocate and attorney at Gibraltar. It was alleged that he had taken advantage of the testator in his character of solicitor. The Attorney-General had filed an information to obtain the property of the deceased as an escheat to the Crown.  Several claims were preferred, and the Court, instead of dismissing the information, allowed it to be amended, and proceeded to consider the interests of the various parties. The appellant, feeling aggrieved as to the remarks on his professional conduct by the Court below, appealed, and the other parties were the respondents, the Attorney-General not interfering in the matter. Their Lordships, to avoid further litigation, considered the rights of the different parties.   
  Sir Montagu Smith, in giving the judgment of the Committee, reviewed the law on solicitor and client. Their Lordships, although there was much in the case they could not approve, held that the appellant, who was both a barrister and an attorney, had acted in good faith and had given a fair price for the property. Their Lordships regretted that on the hearing, when the Attorney-General had withdrawn from the case, the information had not been dismissed by the Court, instead of allowing it to be amended, as it had caused much embarrassment to their Lordships in considering the several interests. The purchase of the property by the appellant would be confirmed, but he must bear the costs of the suit, and there would be no costs of the appeal awarded. Their Lordships would advise Her Majesty that the judgment be in the terms he had mentioned.
  Mr. Kay. Q.C., and Mr. W. W. Kerslake were for the appellant; Mr. Fry, Q.C., and Mr. Bagshawe, Q.C., for the respondents.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School