The Gazette 1955-58

189 / 324

attendances having begun before the sitting of the
court and having concluded after 6 p.m. on each
day of the hearing, the amounts allowed were the
maximum under fee No. 172 in App. N. to the
R.S.C. but objection was taken (by objection No. 5)
that more should have been allowed in the circum
stances. In relation to charges of refresher fees
objection was taken (by objection No. 6) that the
amounts allowed were computed on the basis of
the five-hour rule under R.S.C. Ord 65 r. 27 (48)
for a total hearing of twenty-five hours and thirty-
seven minutes four fees being allowed and the fee
for the hearing on the final day (which only occupied
thirty-seven minutes) being reduced by apportion
ment according to time.
HELD by Roxburgh J :—(i) on taxation of costs
as between solicitor and own client the costs allowed
(apart from items expressly authorised by the
client) should include, by virtue of R.S.C. Ord. 65.
r. 27 (29) not only what was " necessary " but also
what was " proper for the attainment of justice
or for . . . defending the rights of any party " and in
the circumstances the disallowances or reductions
which were the subject of objections Nos. 1-4 were
not maintainable since by excluding consideration
of what might be proper as distinct from what
might be necessary the registrar had made a wrong
approach to the taxation, (ii) although the maximum
fee prescribed by App. N. to the R.S.C. had been
allowed for attendance at the hearing (objection
No. 5) the work for which the charge was made was
not limited to the time of the hearing in court and
accordingly it was wrong to limit the sum allowed
by the maximum amount of the prescribed fee
without deciding whether more should not be
allowed for the attendances beyond court hours,
(iii) a rule of mathematical apportionment of a
refresher fee according to the duration of the
hearing (where the last part of the hearing lasted
less than five hours) should not be applied.
(Re: Mercury Model Aircraft Supplies Ltd.
(1956) 2 An E.R. 885.
Householder whose home is compulsorily purchased can
claim costs for surveyor's fees and travelling
expenses, as well as compensation for disturbance.
A HOUSEHOLDER whose home had been compul
sorily purchased by a new town development cor
poration at an agreed price of £4,148, which
included the legal costs of that purchase and ex
penses incurred in moving her furniture and having
curtains and carpets adjusted to fit a new house,
claimed in addition as " compensation for dis
turbance " under rule (6) of section 2 of the Acquisi
tion of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act,
1919, the surveyors' fees, legal costs and travelling
expenses totalling £241 incurred by her, first in
an abortive proposed purchase of a new home and,
secondly, in the purchase of a new home:—
HELD by ourt of Appeal (Denning, Romer
and Sellers )
(1) that the costs claimed were not part of the
agreed purchase price.
(2) That the householder was entitled to the
costs claimed; for under the rules in section 2
and on the authorities any loss sustained by a dis
possessed owner-occupier of a house which flowed
from the compulsory acquisition could properly
be the subject of compensation for disturbance,
provided (a) that it was not too remote and (V)
that it was the natural direct and reasonable con
sequence of the dispossession. Nothing in rule
(5) of section 2 (which deals with compensation for
reinstatement) excluded from " compensation for
disturbance " an item which included an element
of reinstatement, for rule (5) was directed only to
the assessment for compensation for land which
had no general market value. The question whether
any particular item of expenditure came within
" compensation for disturbance" was in each
case a question of fact for the tribunal.
Per Denning L.J. The owner only recovers
costs of this kind in a case where a house com
pulsorily acquired was occupied by him and he is
forced out of it and reasonably finds a house else
where in which to live. Compensation for dis
turbance of this nature would not be payable
where the house was owned as a form of investment
or where no new home was purchased.
(Harvey v. Crawley Development Corporation—
(1957) z W.L.R. 33*.
Full junior and senior counsel's fees allowed in a
motion to commit for contempt of sourt.
The applicants moved to commit the respondents,
who were the editor and a reporter of a newspaper
and a third person, the plaintiff in an action in which
the applicants were defendants, for contempt in
writing, publishing or procuring to be published
an article in the newspaper. On the hearing of the
motion the respondents apologised, and no order
was made except that the respondents should pay
the applicants' costs of the motion as between
solicitor and client. The applicants paid the fees
of their leading counsel and junior counsel on the
motion. The leading and junior counsel had been
retained by the applicants in the action in which
they were defendants, and in which the motion
81