Another voice

Tale of two solicitors

Auberon Waugh

Exactly a year ago this week, the news- .L/ papers and television news were full of a story which, as presented, seemed to mark a singular and outrageous injustice against any and every norm of human decency. On 17 September 1981 Mr and Mrs Tom Danby and their family were evicted from a cottage in Elloughton, Yorkshire, which they had owned and inhabited for 16 years, on the application of the man who had sold them the property for £2,650 in 1965. The Dan- bys let it be known that they had been unaware of some small print in the agree- ment by which they had bought the proper- ty, which stipulated that the vendors could buy it back at any time within the next 21 years for the same price. A County Court judge upheld the agreement and after various delays, the Danbys were duly evicted in a blaze of publicity. When it became known that the solicitor who had drawn up the document of sale, one Horace William Langdale of Kingston-upon-Hull, was, with his wife, the vendor, popular in- dignation threatened to reach un- manageable proportions. Lord Denning, ever one to understand about public opi- nion, allowed an appeal against the County Court judgment, although it was now two years old, directing that the case should be re-heard in the light of 'new evidence' alleg- ing impropriety on the part of the solicitor- vendor.

So far so good. Many people have no dealings with solicitors at all except over matters of house purchase and wills. Solicitors seldom come very well out of these transactions. Mr Langdale seemed to be giving us a glorious opportunity to in- dulge in a little solicitor-bashing. Opinion in the pubs and clubs — not to mention the popular press — was running strongly that Mr Langdale should be struck off the lists, that the least his fellow-solicitors of Kingston-upon-Hull could do was to form a hollow square and drum him out.

I thought about joining the pack but held back at the last minute. Something about the Danby family, as they appeared on television from the council house which had been made available to them, did not really fit in. Mr Langdale, interviewed on televi- sion, said that the Danbys had known the circumstances perfectly well, but then he would say that, wouldn't he? On the other hand, £2,650 seemed a very cheap price for unencumbered freehold property in 1965. Probably it was just my suspicion of what, for want of a better word, might be called the general aura of Pilgerism attaching to press comment on the case which decided me to keep an open mind: if the Danbys knew perfectly well the terms under which they held the house, and if they were simply using popular indignation to try and swin- dle the Langdales out of their claim, then there seemed no particular reason to join the chorus. The injustice, under those cir- cumstances, would seem to be on the other foot.

Popular interest subsided in the case after Lord Denning's decision, given on 23 November 1981, setting aside the original County Court decision and allowing a re- trial. Justice, it was assumed, would now be done. The Danbys would get their house back and the Langdales, who wanted the house for their daughter, would simply crawl into a hole in the earth.

However, the Langdales were not prepared to fulfil their allotted role. Instead of crawling into a hole in the earth, and despite the fact that, whereas the Danbys were legally aided, they had to pay their own costs, they took Lord Denning's judg- ment to the House of Lords. Now, a year after the Langdales had been reviled as Shylocks in every pub in the country, I have secured a copy of the House of Lords judg- ment, which does not seem to have received the same amount of publicity as the Dan- bys' original claim to have been maltreated. The judgment, by Lord Bridge, with Lords Diplock, Fraser, Roskill and Brightman concurring, tells a somewhat different story from that of the simple working man forced, by desperate need, to sign a document prepared for him which he did not under- stand.

As Lord Bridge explains it, the Langdales made it quite plain that they were disposing of the house subject to their being able to buy it back for one of their three daughters. Those were the only circumstances under which they were prepared to sell. When it came to the point, the Danbys had no money at all: Mr Langdale had to advance them the money for a deposit on the building society loan. 'Moreover,' con- tinues Lord Bridge, 'Mr Danby could not even afford to employ a solicitor. Mr Langdale therefore agreed to undertake all the necessary conveyancing work for no fee except disbursements. In the event, all that Mr Danby had to pay was £7 16s Od ...'

`In 1979 the Langdales, requiring the cot- tage for a daughter who was about to be married, wished to exercise the option ... The Langdales offered to re-purchase for £6,150, £3,500 above the option price. This offer was refused . .

`I hope it is not unfair to summarise the history by saying that Mr Danby, presumably with the advice and coopera- tion of his solicitor, resorted to every con- ceivable device to deny the Langdales the fruit of their judgment for as long as possi- ble Eventually a writ of possession was

issued and executed on 17 September 1981 when the Danby family were evicted amidst a blaze of publicity which one can only sup: pose had been organised by or on behalf of the Danbys and which was calculated to show Mr Langdale in the worst possible light ...' To cut a long story short, the House of Lords threw out the Appeal Court's judg- ment and directed that on this occasion tne Langdales' costs should be paid out of the legal aid fund. Until that direction, delivered as a sort of throw-away line at the very end, the Langdales must have wondered whether they would not be lort, with costs vastly greater than the value 01 the house which was the subject of the dispute. Why on earth did the Langdales do it? Presumably, as a solicitor, Mr Langdale believed in British justice, that ultimately the courts would come up with a just deel" sion. I wish I could share his confidence' On this occasion, it would seem, the creaky old system actually worked. Justice Was

done. A British citizen stood up for his

rights and the law upheld him. A member of the working class was actually required to honour an agreement he had freely and knowingly entered into. But can we really say that the Langdales have received justice? Reading through Lord Bridge's ten-page judgment, I found myself struck time all', again by the fact that the Langdales had not only behaved honourably throughout, but that their behaviour had been characteri.,seu by the greatest generosity. Yet me

Langdale's reward for this behaviour was to live in a state of acute anxiety for nearly

four years, being reviled as a Shylock the length and breadth of the nation, and liable to lose not only his house but also a huge sum of money. I do not see how anyone can honestly call that justice.

One moral might be some adaptation of the Bellocian maxim: `Kindness to animals should be Attuned to their bestiality.'

But I do not see Mr Danby necessarilY the villain of this shoddy little story. He has lost not only the £6,150 he was offered la' even the £2,650 he eventually saved, as his contribution to legal expenses. Nor do I see the newspapers and 'media' folk as villains who rushed to a wrong conclusion; although I think they might have tried a lit; tle harder. I have taken 1,400 words and Lord Bridge takes about 6,500, all jar mensely boring and composed at leisure, to explain why we think Mr Langdale is right' I don't even think we can blame the legs) aid system, which allows penniless folk is persecute their betters in an unjust cause' since the only alternative — that penniless folk have no legal redress — would be worse. The person whose behaviour 1,01'd Bridge seemed to find oddest (apart frog' Lord Denning, who does not count) Wss Danby's solicitor, a Mr John Bosomworth' I thought there would be another solicitor somewhere in the woodpile.