The Gazette 1914-15

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland,

26

[JUNE, 1914

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.)

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.) 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). CHANCERY DIVISION. (Before Astbury, J.)