The Gazette 1958-61

DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST Costs where plaintifffails to beat lodgment—Costs of the issue and costs of the cause. Plaintiff sustained injuries when travelling on defendants' light railway near Athenry, and brought an action for personal injuries. The jury brought in a verdict of £300 against the defendants on the grounds (a) that the plaintiff was a lawful passenger on the train and (b) negligence and breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendants from which he sustained injuries. As the defendants had lodged £305 in Court, judgment was given for them from the date of lodgment, and the plaintiff was to have his costs up to the date of lodgment, together with all his costs on the issue of negligence. This judgment was interpreted by the Taxing Master to mean that the plaintiff should be allowed his costs up to the date of lodgment, and that the defendants should be allowed their costs after the date of lodgment, less the costs which were ex clusively referable to the issue of negligence, which were allowed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, objecting to this interpretation, asked for a review of the taxation. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the Taxing Master should have taxed the defendants' costs, as if the action were one in which liability was admitted, and the only issue was damages; and should have first taxed the plaintiff's costs, as if he had wholly succeeded in the action, and then taxed them, as if it was an action in which the only issue was damages, and should have allowed him the difference. In delivering judgment on i8th May, 1953, Davitt P. adopted the dictum of Baron Fitzgerald in Morgan v. Gray—17 Irish Jurist (1865), 335—as follows, at page 340:—"I think it may be treated as the settled practice both before and since the Common Law Procedure Act that the party who is entitled to the costs of the cause is also entitled to the costs of the issues found for him, though such costs were also applicable to the issues found against him:—while the other party is entitled only to the costs applicable exclusively to the issues on which he has succeeded " :—Accord ingly, the President refused to reverse the Taxing Master's interpretation of the order. (Behan v. Bord na Mona—Unreported Judgment of the President of the High Court, i8th May, 1953.) This case illustrates the difference between costs of an issue and costs of the cause. The plaintiff was awarded all his costs down to date of lodgment and thereafter the defendant was entitled to the costs of the action while the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the issue of negligence only which was contested. The result was that (a) the plaintiff received his costs down to date of lodgment on the issues of negligence 82

Secretary to remember that auctioneers down the country are just as dependable as some of the gentlemen sent from the city of Dublin. Would he not consider appointing some of these to do this work which has now fallen so far into arrears ? Mr. O. J. Flanagan : And I may add that the auctioneer can be very helpful. Mr. J. Brennan : I am sure the Deputy is well aware there are certain things which would not make it advisable to have local or temporary valuers appointed. Mr. O'Donnell: Bring them in from the neighbouring counties. Mr. J. Brennan : It is a post better suited to permanent civil servants only. Mr. O'Donnell: Who know nothing whatever about the valuation of property. (Dail Debates— zjth February, 1960.) In the Dublin District Court on March loth, It was held that the defendants, who carry on two summonses under section 64 of the Solicitors' Act, 1954, which provides that a body corporate or director, officer or servant thereof, shall not do any act of such nature or in such manner as to imply that the body corporate is qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor. It was held that the defendants, who carry on the business of debt collecting, had written two letters which contravened the section. One of these letters dated 23rd September, 1959 was as follows : Our clients Huet Bros. Ltd. confirm that the above balance is still due for goods supplied several years ago and unless immediate arrange ments are made to pay we regret that legal action must be taken. The other letter, dated 3oth September, 1959 (which was written on behalf of different creditors), was as follows : We have been instructed by the above clients to take proceedings against you for the balance of £5 I2s. od., and £3 izs. 6d., due. We have been instructed also to lodge the decree with the County Sheriff's office to have your Ford YYI.zzy seized. We would advise you to give the matter your urgent attention. The Justice convicted and imposed a fine of £50 on each summons with £15 155. costs and witnesses' expenses. The defendants have appealed against this con viction. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNQUALIFIED PERSONS