30 / 120
26
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland,
[JUNE, 1914
to whose estates administration had been
taken out before her death ; one-sixth to thf
legal personal representatives, when con
stituted, of Henry, a son who had disappeared
in 1883 ;
and the remaining one-sixth to the
legal personal representatives of another son,
Walter, who had died in E.'s lifetime, but to
whose estate administration had not been
taken out till after her death; and the
London County Council were ordered to pay
costs according to the Act. On taxation the
applicants claimed, and the Taxing Master
disallowed
(1)
costs of
taking Counsel's
opinion as to who were entitled to the fund
on E.'s death ;
(2) costs of
taking out
administration to Henry and Walter ;
(3)
costs of an application
to
the Probate
Division for leave to assume Henry's death.
The applicants took out this summons to
review the taxation by allowing these items.
Astbury, J., said that as tc (2) the costs of
taking out administration
the case was
covered by the decision in
In re Lloyd and the
North London Railway (City Branch) Act,
1861 (1896), 2 Ch, 397 ; and (3) the applica
tion to the Probate Division was necessary
for and antecedent to obtaining administra
tion, and must be allowed as part of the costs
thereof. As to (1) he saw no reason for
differing from the Taxing Master's decision.
(Reported (1914)
Weekly Notes,
221.)
HIGH COURT OF
JUSTICE
(ENGLAND).
CHANCERY DIVISION.
(Before Astbury, J.)
In re
PARRATT ;
PARRATT
v.
PARRATT.
May 8, 1914.—
Costs—Copies of documents for
the Judge
—
Practice.
This was a case which turned upon the
construction of a Will. No copy of the Will
had been provided for the Judge, and it was
stated that there was a general impression
that the cost of such copies should not be
allowed on taxation.
Astbury, J., said that the Court ought not
to be expected to use original documents,
and the costs of copies of all relevant parts of
wills and other documents for the use of the
Court ought to be allowed on taxation.
(Reported (1914)
Weekly Notes,
222.)
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (ENGLAND).
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before Scrutton, J.)
MATTHEWS
v.
COMMISSIONERS OF
INLAND
REVENUE.
May
9,
1914.—
Revenue—Land
Values—
Provisional valuation—Appeal from referee
—Order
to pay costs
—
Rule of Court
—
Finance
(1909-10)
Act,
1910.
Motion on behalf of the appellant for an
order that the award of a referee under the
Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, should be made
a rule of Court. The referee by his award
on an appeal against the provisional valuation
assessed the gross total value and site value
at £23,690, and directed the appellants' costs
of the appeal to be borne by the Commis
sioners. He did not assess the amount of the
costs, and the object of the present motion
was to enable the costs to be ascertained by
taxation. The motion was not opposed.
Scrutton,
J., granted
the application.
Under Section 33 (3) of the Finance (1909-10)
Act, 1910, a referee might, if he thought fit,
order that any expenses incurred by one party
should be paid by the other party, and any
such order as to expenses might be made a
rule of Court.
In
Simpson
v.
Commissioners
of Inland Revenue,
he decided that if the
referee awarded " expenses " to one party he
must fix the amount himself, there being no
means by which a Taxing Master could tax
" expenses." Here the referee awarded costs,
and a person authorised to give costs might
delegate the ministerial act of taxation.
If
the award were made a rule of Court the costs
could be taxed, and he was of the opinion
that a referee might make a valid order as to
costs without fixing the amount. The Judge
added that he would consider whether it was
possible to bring the matter before the Rule
Committee with a view to simplification of
the procedure so as to make the attendance
of Counsel unnecessary on an unopposed
motion.
(Reported (1914)
Weekly Notes,
227.
For
Simpson
v.
Commissioners of Inland Revenue
referred to in above judgment, see GAZETTE
of May, 1914, page 7.)