73 / 132
DEC., 1908]
The Gazette of the|Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
received from the council a paying order in
their favour for
£71 8s.,
being the amount of
the compensation money, and also a paying
order
for ^4 i is. 4^., being the certified
amount of their costs, and asking Messrs. Roche
to hand over the completed receipt in exchange
for these paying orders. Messrs. Roche replied
on April 21, refusing to accept the paying
order for ^4
us. \d.
in satisfaction of their
bill of costs. Messrs. Roche then wrote to the
Secretary of the Local Government Board pro
testing against the mode of measuring the
costs, pointing out that it was not a taxation,
and requiring that arrangements should be
made to have the costs taxed on notice to
them in a proper manner and in their presence.
To this letter the Local Government Board
replied on May 7, asserting that the costs
had been taxed in pursuance of s. 31 of the
Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, and of Rule 55
of the order made thereunder, and that in the
arrangements they had made under the order
they did not consider it necessary to put the
claimants or rural councils to the expense of
being represented by solicitors on the taxation
of such bills of costs.
Several further letters
were written by Messrs. Roche to the Local
Government Board protesting against
the
course that had been adopted, and demanding
particulars of the deductions made in their bill
of costs, and on June 4 the Local Government
Board wrote to Messrs. Roche, stating it was
not the usual practice of the Board to inform
solicitors what deductions were made in certifv-
ing their bills of costs, but in the present
instance the secretary was directed to send a
statement showing the deductions made. After
perusing the list of deductions Messrs. Roche
wrote again to the Local Government Board
complaining that the deductions were not
made according to the existing schedule of
fees, and demanding that they should be in
formed upon what scale or schedule of fees the
bill of costs had been taxed. The Board gave
no information as to the scale or schedule of
fees, but on their memorandum referring the
bill to Messrs. Mecredy were the words "new
scale," which it appeared referred to a scale
about
to be
introduced. Accordingly, on
July 30, 1908, the applicant obtained a con
ditional order to remove into the King's Bench
Division for the purpose of being quashed
the original certificate of taxation of the bill
of costs for ^4
us. \d.,
dated April 13, 1908,
made on the taxation of a bill of costs furnished
March 28, 1908, upon the following grounds:—
(i)That there was no taxation of the said
bill of costs by a legally constituted taxing
authority, and that the Local Government
Board could only certify after such legal taxa
tion ;
(2) that if Messrs. Mecredy were a
legally constituted taxing authority, the Local
Government Board could only certify for the
amount ascertained by Messrs. Mecredy ;
(3) that' if the sum of £4
us. ^d.
truly repre
sented the result of any taxation, such taxation
was illegal, because it was not carried out
under and according to the existing schedule
of costs and fees or any legally prescribed
schedule or scale regulating the costs and
charges of solicitors ;
(4) that
the entire
alleged taxation was illegal by reason of the
solicitors for owners whose costs were being
taxed having been excluded from attending or
being present when such bill of costs was
being taxed, and by reason of no subsequent
opportunity having been given to them before
such certificate was made up of explaining or
justifying the items objected to or disallowed ;
(5) that if the effect of Rule 55 of the Labourers
(Ireland) Order, 1906, was to enable the Local
Government Board to determine and fix the
amount of costs payable to the ownerin respect
of giving proof of title without referring such
costs to a properly constituted taxing authority
for taxation, or to enable the Local Govern
ment Board to certify that the sum payable in
respect of such costs was an amount different
from the amount ascertained as the proper
amount of such costs by a properly constituted
taxing authority, said rule was
ultra vires
and
void. The Local Government Board showed
cause.
GIBSON, J.:—
This application for
certiorari
raises ques
tions of difficulty and importance affecting the
Labourers Act, 1906, rules thereunder, and
the validity of a taxation of a vendor's- costs.
The applicant contends—(i) that section 31
did not authorize the creation of a new taxing
authority; (2) that Rule 55 was
ullra vires,
because
it purports
to create such taxing
authority, because it purports to make the
Board such authority, and because, if it does
not, it purports to enable the Board to create
a particular taxing authority in each case;
(3) if Messrs. Mecredy were a lawful taxing
authority, they were acting not on their own
independent judicial responsibility, but under
unlawful directions of the Board controlling
them;
(4) the taxation was invalid, as the
vendor's solicitors were given no opportunity
of defending their bill, and vouching same.