The Gazette 1921-25

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

[FEBRUARY, 1922

48

Legal Decisions. CHANCERY DIVISION. (Before POWELL, J.)

charged. The case for Counsel charged for is one carefully drawn, dealing with con veyancing and questions of title and, in my opinion, requiring considerable skill and attention. It has been pressed on me that In re O'Hagan has from time to time been differed from both by Judges in this country and in England, and I was referred to the following cases :—In Ireland, Todd'and Mark v. McKinlay, in which the late Chief Baron held that conditions of sale were chargeable for under Schedule II. It appears from the correspondence the Master of the Rolls had with the Taxing Masters in England that it was their practice at that time to tax costs of cases for Counsel under the old Schedule, and not under Schedule II., but after the decision of In re Mahon they changed their practice, and they from that date have taxed the costs Of cases for Counsel under Schedule II. This practice has been approved 6f by Mr. Justice Neville as late as 1914 in In re R. P. Morgan and Co." Powell, J.—It appears from the cases cited in the Taxing Master's ruling that the practice in England has been completely changed by the two decisions In re Mahon and In re R. P. Morgan and Co. In the latter case Neville, J., a most careful Judge, held that drawing a case for Counsel in contemplation of litigation comes within the expression " other business " in Rule 2 of the General Order, Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881, and, being a " document " within Schedule II. thereto, was properly charged for at 2/- a folio. I am bound to say that I agree with him. I am glad to be able to follow the later decisions. In my opinion a case to Counsel is a " document." It is often the most important document in the whole gamut of the litigation for the client, and I think that Solicitors should be fairly remunerated. That is my own view, and having regard to the later decisions and the change of practice in England, I am of opinion that the ruling of the Taxing Master should be overruled. (Reported, 1922, 1 /. R., page 13.) [NOTE.—In accordance with the above decision the charge for drawing case to Counsel would be at the rate of 3/— per folio, and I/- per folio for engrossing same, where the work has been done since the

In RATHGAR IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS and FIELD. 1921, July 5.— Solicitor—Costs—Taxation — " Drawing documents " — Case for opinion ofCounsel—General Order under Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, Schedule II. Drawing a case for counsel in contem plation of litigation comes within the expression : " drawing .... other documents " in Schedule II. of the General Order, 1884, made in pursuance of the Solicitors' Re muneration Act, 1881, and is properly charged for at 2s. a folio, In re Mahon [1893] 1 ch., 507, and In re. Morgan [1915] 1 ch., 182, followed. Summons to review taxation. Alexander Field lodged objections to the Taxing Master's partial disallowance of certain items in a bill of costs. The objections were in respect of items 24 and 26, which dealt with a case submitted to Counsel to advise on the construction of a Will under which certain property in question in this matter was disposed of. Alexander Field's contention before the Taxing Master was that the items in question came within Schedule II. of the General Order, 1884, made in pursuance of the Solicitors Remuner ation Act, 1881. It was submitted that the case for the opinion of Counsel represented by the items was an ordinary case, and that the Solicitors were entitled to charge two shillings per folio for drawing the case and eightpence per folio for engrossing the same, and the case not being an extraordinary case within the meaning of the Schedule, the Taxing Master had no discretionary power to increase or diminish the authorised charge. The ruling of the Taxing Master on the objections was as follows :—" I overrule the objections, as, in my opinion, I am bound by the decision of the Master of the Rolls in In re O'Hagan. Were it not for this decision I would, having regard to the changed practice of the Taxing Masters in England, and the decisions hereinafter referred to, be disposed to allow the fee as re THE RATHMINES AND