49 / 90
JANUARY, 1913]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
47
Arbitrary Measuring of Costs.
is one which is constantly before your Council.
Your Council was in hopes that the resolution
that was passed at the Special General Meeting
of the Society held in the month of February
last, and which was forwarded to all the
Judges of the High Court as well as County
Court, would have been more universally
adopted. Your Council do not suggest for one
moment that the discretion of awarding costs
should be taken away from the Judges, but
when the Judges do exercise that discretion
the costs should not be arbitrarily fixed against
the desire of the party to whom the costs are
payable and in the absence of any special
circumstances.
In many cases costs are fixed
at, say,
£4
4s., and after payment of Counsel,
Court Fees, and outlay, a few shillings only
remain for the Solicitor to cover the work
done by him, such sum being, not only un
reasonable, but most unfair to the profession.
Rule 25, Order 65, provides that on the appli
cation of the party to whom the costs are
directed to be paid, or if under special cir
cumstances of the case the Judge shall think
just, the Court may direct payment of a sum
in gross in lieu of costs to be taxed. That
rule specifically states that the costs are only
to be fixed upon the application of the party
to whom such costs are directed to be paid,
or, if under special circumstances, the Judge
shall so think just. Your Council, therefore,
submit that in no case ought costs to be fixed
except by the consent of both parties, or, in
the absence of such consent, upon the appli
cation of the person to whom such costs are
to be paid, or under the special circumstances
of the case, and I submit that the duty lies
upon the party who is directed to pay such
costs to show that there are such special cir
cumstances in existence as would justify them
in asking the Court to fix a gross sum. Before
passing, however, from this subject, I would
like to draw special attention to the fact that
unless the Solicitors themselves will assist in
putting into practice the resolution of the Bar
Council, a copy of which is set out in the
Report, there is little use in their making com
plaints to the Council. Therefore, I would ask
the Solicitors to back up the Council in doing
away with this most objectionable practice.
The Lord Chancellor has invariably made it
a practice before making alterations in Rules,
or revising any question of practice, in which
the profession is affected, to consult and invite
the opinion of the Council relative to such
alterations, and I would like to take this
opportunity of thanking his Lordship for the
courtesy extended
to the Council of
the
Society by him in this respect. This practice,
however, is not followed by the County Court
Judges, because in the month of July last,
without any previous intimation either to the
President or the Council, a scale of County
Court Costs in respect of
The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914,
was drawn up and published in the press.
Your Council were of opinion that many items
of these costs were inadequate, and, con
sequently,
they
communicated with
the
Secretary of the County Court Judges Com
mittee on the subject, and a reply was received
stating the Judges had fully considered the
matter and could not see their way to alter
the scale.
I may mention, however, that
this scale is not binding upon any individual
Judge, and I am glad to say that many of the
County Court
Judges
throughout
Ireland
have not adopted it. Your Council prepared
a scale which appears in the appendix to the
Report.
Some of the County Court Judges
have adopted that scale, while others have
adhered to the scale previously allowed by
them which had been settled after consultation
with the Sessions Bar of their County, and
which in amount almost corresponded with the
scale suggested by the Council. Early in the
year your Council had the honour of presenting
an address to Lord Wimborne on his appoint
ment to be His Majesty's Representative in
Ireland, and a copy of that address and His
Excellency's reply will be found in the appendix
to the Report.
There being no other matter of special
importance that I think I need refer to, I
formally have the honour to propose the adop
tion of the Report.
Mr.
JAMES MOORE
(Vice-President]
in
seconding the motion for the adoption of the
Report, said that personally he felt pride
in the profession—pride for the way members
responded to the call of the Country—both
Solicitors and Apprentices. They should all
feel that pride, tempered with sorrow, because
they had lost some of their very best, some of