Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Costs - From: 1900 To: 1929

This page lists 33 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Forbes-Smith v Forbes-Smith and Chadwick [1901] P 258; [1901] LJP 61; [1901] LT 789; [1901] 50 WR 6; [1901] 17 TLR 587; [1901] 45 Sol Jo 595
1901
CA

Costs, Family
W petitioned for judicial separation. H cross-petitioned for divorce, citing C as co-respondent. The actions were consolidated, W's petition withdrawn, and a decree absolute of divorce granted to H. A costs order was made against C. On taxation, H asked for his costs of defending W's original suit. Held: The consolidation of the suits was not properly so called, and H was not entitled against C to his costs of defending W's original suit to which C was not a party. The court had no jurisdiction to make such an order, since he had not been a 'party to the proceedings' as required under the 1857 Act.
Judicature Act 1890 5 - Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 34
1 Citers


 
Twist v Tye [1902] P 92
1902

Sir Gorell Barnes
Wills and Probate, Costs
The three plaintiff executors, who had unsuccessfully propounded a will, were also residuary legatees under the will, had themselves managed the deceased's affairs before she made it, and had had ample opportunity of forming an opinion as to her testamentary capacity. Held: They had not acted improperly, but they had taken a view about the testatrix which turned out to be mistaken. The executors had taken a view and acted upon it, in circumstances where they stood to benefit if the will was upheld. There was accordingly nothing to warrant a departure from the general rule that costs should follow the event.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company [1903] 2 KB 533
1903
CA
Romer LJ
Costs
Where a party sues two or more defendants and succeeds against one but fails against one or more other defendants, the court has a discretion to order the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of the claimant in pursuing the successful defendant and the costs of the successful defendant or defendants.
Romer LJ said: "the Court has full power over the costs of all parties of such an action; and, in my opinion, it has jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendant against whom the action fails, and to add those costs to his own to be paid by the defendant against whom the action has succeeded, and whose conduct has necessitated the action.
The costs so recovered over by the plaintiff are in no true sense damages, but are ordered to be paid by the unsuccessful defendant, on the ground that in such an action as I am considering those costs have been reasonably and properly incurred by the plaintiff as between him and the last-named defendant.
Of course, in exercising the jurisdiction, a judge should have regard to the circumstances of the case, and be satisfied that it is just that the unsuccessful defendant should, either directly or indirectly, have to pay the costs of the successful defendant."
1 Citers


 
Barrie v Caledonian Railway Co [1903] UKHL 600; 40 SLR 600
20 Mar 1903
HL
Lord Macnaghten, Lord Shand, Lord Davey, Lord Robertson, and Lord Lindley
Costs
Appeal to House of Lords - Competency - Appeal on Question of Expenses only.
An appeal to the House of Lords on the question of expenses only is not competent.
[ Bailii ]
 
David v Rees [1904] 2 KB 435
1904


Costs

1 Citers


 
In Re Longbotham and Sons [1904] 2 Ch 152
1904
CA
Romer LJ
Legal Professions, Costs
The borrower had agreed to pay the lender's solicitors bill, but challenged it saying that it included elements for personal work. Held: The personal items were excluded. Costs which are outside the scope of the third party's liability "would not have to be taxed or considered". In other words it is no part of the assessment that such costs are taxed or considered. Romer LJ said: "When a third party taxes a bill under s. 38 of the Act of 1843, it is clear, both from the wording of the section itself and the authorities, that the taxation must be on the footing of a taxation between the solicitor and the client. But the third party is not for all purposes in connection with the taxation to be treated as if he were himself the client. For instance, when the client has paid the bill, and might not be able to shew special circumstances sufficient to entitle him to have the bill taxed, it does not follow of necessity that the third party is thereby precluded from obtaining taxation."
A third party asked to pay a solicitors bill is entitled to have extraneous matters excluded. Romer LJ said: "Again, the solicitor may have acted for the client in more than one completed matter, and the client may not be entitled as against the solicitor to obtain delivery of a bill and taxation, except on the footing of having all the matters included and taxed. But if the third party be only interested in and liable to pay the costs of one matter, it is clear in my opinion, as a matter of principle, that under s. 38 he can obtain taxation of the bill so far as concerns that one matter only, and on the footing of being liable to pay only the taxed costs of that matter. And that principle really decides this case, and shews that the appeal should fail. For in the present case the third party is a mortgagor, and he is only interested in the relations between the solicitor and his client so far as they concern the position of the client strictly in his character of mortgagee. The mortgagor, therefore, is entitled under s. 38 to have taxation of the solicitors' bill limited to the items of costs incurred by the client strictly in his position of mortgagee."
Romer LJ said: "It may well be that the client, as between himself and the solicitor, is liable for costs incurred in relation to the mortgaged property with which the mortgagor is not concerned, and for which the mortgagor is not liable. Those will be costs incurred by the mortgagee in his personal capacity so far as concerns the mortgagor, and not costs incurred by him in the capacity of mortgagee strictly and properly considered, and accordingly would not have to be taxed or considered by the taxing master in a taxation by the mortgagor as third party."
Solicitors Act 1843 38
1 Citers


 
Williamson v Alexander MacPherson and Co [1904] SLR 42 - 182
8 Dec 1904
SCS

Costs
Interim Execution Pending Appeal to House of Lords - Expenses Found Due Reserving Question of Modification - Taxed Amount of Expenses not Modified Prior to Appeal
[ Bailii ]

 
 In re Wenborn and Co; 1905 - [1905] 1 Ch 413
 
Re Cohen and Cohen [1905] 2 Ch 137
1905
CA
Vaughan Williams, Stirling, Romer LLJ
Legal Professions, Costs
Mrs Cotton sued Mr Edwardes for breach of contract; and he claimed against her as to the ownership of a song. Mrs Cotton authorised her solicitors to incur liabilities for unusual expenses, including the employment of leading and junior counsel to settle the statement of claim and to advise on evidence. Before giving instructions for taking these steps she had been advised by the solicitors that the extra costs would have to be paid by herself; and would not be allowed against her opponent even if she were successful in the litigation. Mr Edwardes and Mrs Cotton subsequently settled the actions on terms that Mr Edwardes paid Mrs Cotton's costs "as between solicitor and client relating to the matters in dispute in the said two actions, such costs to be agreed or taxed." The Master said that he had taxed the bill item by item and had decided that unusual charges and luxuries were to be borne by the client (Mrs Cotton) rather than by Mr Edwardes. He therefore disallowed the special fees paid to leading counsel. She appealed. Held: The appeal failed.
Vaughan Williams LJ said that the agreement should be construed as limited to costs that were reasonable proper and necessary in the actions and that by requiring assessment of the bill Mr Edwardes had not enlarged his liability under the agreement.
Romer LJ said: "I think he has contracted to pay solicitor and client costs to be taxed in the ordinary way without regard to any special arrangement which may have extended the client's ordinary liability . . To hold otherwise would be to prevent a third party from obtaining the benefit of s. 38. Either he would have to forego taxation, or if he obtained it would find himself liable to pay sums which could not be anticipated by him, and for which as third party he was not liable." Applying this principle, he held that Mr Edwardes was not liable to pay the costs of instructing leading counsel. As he put it: "it is clear that the items disallowed by the taxing master were items for which Mr Edwardes was not liable."
1 Citers


 
Spiers v English [1907] P 122
1907

Sir Gorrell Barnes P
Wills and Probate, Costs
The two main principles which should guide the court in determining that costs in an appropriate suit are not to follow the event are firstly where the testator or those interested in the residue had been the cause of the litigation and secondly, if the circumstances lead reasonably to the investigation in regard to a propounded document. In the latter case the costs may be left to be borne by those who incurred them. In the former the costs of unsuccessfully opposing probate may be ordered to be paid out of the estate.
Sir Gorell Barnes P said: "In deciding questions of costs one has to go back to the principles which govern cases of this kind. One of those principles is that if a person who makes a will or persons who are interested in the residue have been really the cause of the litigation a case is made out for costs to come out of the estate. Another principle is that, if the circumstances lead reasonably to an investigation of the matter, then the costs may be left to be borne by those who have incurred them. If it were not for the application of those principles, which, if not exhaustive, are the two great principles upon which the Court acts, costs would now, according to the rule, follow the event as a matter of course. Those principles allow good cause to be shewn why costs should not follow the event. Therefore, in each case where an application is made, the Court has to consider whether the facts warrant either of those principles being brought into operation."
1 Citers



 
 Ideal Bedding Company Ltd v Holland; 1907 - [1907] 2 Ch 157
 
Bullock v London General Omnibus Company [1907] 1 KB 264; [1904-7] All ER 44
1907


Costs
An order was made for the payment of the successful defendants' costs, but with liberty to the plaintiff to include those costs in the costs of the action recoverable by the plaintiff from the unsuccessful defendant. The plaintiff had been unable before litigation to assess which of the defendants might be liable. In some circumstances it will be just for a successful plaintiff who has sued two (or more) defendants to be indemnified by the unsuccessful defendant for the costs he or she incurred in proceeding against the successful defendant. This may be a just outcome where the allocation responsibility between the potential defendants is uncertain, making it a reasonable course for the plaintiff to proceed through to trial against more than one defendant.
1 Citers


 
Re Buckton, Buckton v Buckton [1907] 2 Ch 406
1907
ChD
Kekewich J
Wills and Probate, Costs
An application was made for the payment of the costs of the action from the deceased's estate. Held: Kekewich J identified three situations where an issue might arise about the payment of legal costs out of a fund. First, a trustee may seek guidance from the Court in order to ascertain the interests of the beneficiaries: and see Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 66 r 9. Second, beneficiaries may apply to the court by reason of some difficulty of construction or administration that would have justified an application by the trustee, but where it was not convenient for the trustee to apply. In both of those situations, the costs of all parties can be characterised as necessarily incurred for the benefit of the estate. Provided the application was not, in substance, unreasonable, the court might direct costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client and paid out of the estate. Mr Justice Kekewich recorded that: "In a large proportion of the summonses adjourned into court for argument the applicants are trustees of a will or settlement who ask the court to construe the instrument of trust for their guidance and in order to ascertain the interests of the beneficiaries or else ask to have some question determined which has arisen in the administration of the trusts. " In such cases the costs of all parties are necessarily incurred for the benefit of the estate and the court directed them to be taxed as between solicitor and client and paid out of the estate.
1 Citers



 
 Cobbett v Wood; 1908 - [1908] 2 KB 420
 
British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd v Lamson Store Service Co Ltd [1908] 1 KB 1006
1908

Fletcher-Moulton LJ
Costs, Litigation Practice
The court explained the law underlying the civil and criminal penalties for the maintenance of an action by third parties: "It is directed against wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others in which the [maintainer] has no interest whatever, and where the assistance he renders to one or the other party is without justification or excuse."
1 Citers


 
Re Hirst and Capes [1908] 1 KB 982
1908


Legal Professions, Costs
If there is an admitted agreement for payment of a solicitor's costs by a third party, and the only question is its true construction, then the costs judge is entitled to decide the question of construction as part of the process of assessment
1 Citers


 
Gundry v Sainsbury [1910] 1 KB 645
1910


Costs
A party’s inability to recover more by way of costs than the amount for which he is himself liable by way of costs is known as the indemnity principle.
1 Citers



 
 Boehm v Goodall; ChD 1911 - [1911] 1 Ch 155

 
 In re A Debtor (No 68 of 1911); 1911 - [1911] 2 KB 652

 
 Puddephatt v Leith (No 2); 1916 - [1916] 2 Ch 168
 
Belgian Grain and Produce Co Ltd v Cox and Co (France) Ltd [1919] WN 317
1919

Bankes LJ
Commonwealth, Costs

1 Citers


 
Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani [1919] 2 KB 567
1919
CA

Legal Professions, Costs
The court considered an apportionment of the legal costs as between the parties. Held: On the authorities, each client was only liable to the solicitors for half of the costs of the joint items of defence and the whole of any separate items of defence.
1 Citers


 
M'Alinden v James Nimmo and Co Ltd [1919] UKHL 522; 56 SLR 522
1 Jul 1919
HL
Viscouut Finlay, Viscount Cave, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw, and Lord Wrenbury
Personal Injury, Damages, Costs
It is open to an arbiter acting under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, upon sufficient evidence being adduced, to increase the compensation granted to a workman on partial incapacity, on the ground that though there is no change in his physical state, there is a greater difficulty than had been contemplated at the time of the original grant in his obtaining employment. Circumstances in which held that an arbiter had facte before him to entitle him to increase an original award.
The Scots Act 1424, cap. 24 (1424, cap. 45), dealing with pauper causes, enacts-" . . Ana gif sic cause be obtenyt the wrangar sail asseyth bath the party scathit and the aduocatis costis and truale. . . "
Held that the practice of the House of Lords was established as to the question of expenses in a poor's cause, and could not be altered because of an early Scots statute which had not in contemplation an appeal to the House of Lords.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
1920
CA
Atkin LJ
Costs
The trial judge had refused to award costs to a successful defendant in a clinical negligence action. He was mainly influenced in this regard by the attitude the defendant had adopted in response to a letter before action, which, in the words of the headnote to the report, he had written in a tone of levity and in somewhat insulting terms. Held: The court reviewed ealier cases and decided that the costs order should be overruled: "It is not easy to deduce from these authorities what the precise principles are that are to guide a judge in exercising his discretion over costs. And yet as the discretion is only to be exercised where there are materials upon which to exercise it, it seems important to ascertain the principles upon which a judge is to discern whether the necessary materials exist. In the case of a wholly successful defendant, in my opinion the judge must give the defendant his costs unless there is evidence that the defendant (1.) brought about the litigation, or (2.) has done something connected with the institution or the conduct of the suit calculated to occasion unnecessary litigation and expense, or (3.) has done some wrongful act in the course of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains."
1 Citers



 
 Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders Ltd; CA 1921 - [1921] 1 KB 495
 
North British Railway Co v Magistrates of Edinburgh [1921] UKHL 434; 58 SLR 434
24 Feb 1921
HL
Viscount Cave, Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Shaw, and Moulton
Costs
In an action against the magistrates of a burgh for relief from certain burdens and for recovery of sums paid, the First Division on 12th March 1920 granted the decree of declarator craved and remitted the cause to the Lord Ordinary to dispose of the petitory conclusions of the summons. Leave to appeal was granted. No appeal having been presented, the pursuers (after notice to the defenders, who did not appear) obtained decree from the Lord Ordinary for the sum sued for with expenses. Both the principal sum and the pursuers' expenses as taxed were thereafter paid by the defenders. On 24th February 1921 the defenders presented a petition and appeal against the interlocutor of 12th March 1920.
The Committee dismissed the appeal as incompetent.
[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Carton Ltd (1923) 39 TLR 194
1923

PO Lawrence J
Insolvency, Costs
The court considered the remuneration of a liquidator in a voluntary liquidation. Held: The court refused to authorise remuneration at an unusually generous percentage rate, which had been approved by the committee of inspection, on the grounds that the amount of work undertaken did not justify a rate higher than the rate usually applied. PO Lawrence J also said this of a time-basis: "The Court as a general rule only fixes remuneration on a time-basis if there is no other method which would operate to give the liquidator fair remuneration. Experience has shown that the time occupied by a liquidator and his clerks affords a most unreliable test by which to measure the remuneration. Even the best accountant may spend hours over unproductive work, let alone his more or less efficient staff of clerks . . The Court has long since come to the conclusion that the proper method to adopt whenever it is practicable is to assess the remuneration according to the results attained,"
1 Citers



 
 In re Pitchford; 11-Jan-1924 - [1924] 2 Ch 260
 
Earl v Earland Kyle; Earl v Earl (1926) 96 LJP 23; [1926] 136 LT 383
1926


Family, Costs
There had been cross-petitions between H and W, and they had been consolidated by court order. Held: The court had no jurisdiction to order the co-respondent to pay the costs of the wife's suit since she was not a party to that petition despite the consolidation.
Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 50
1 Cites


 
Re Plant deceased [1926] P 139
1926

Scrutton LJ, Lord Hanworth MR
Wills and Probate, Costs
The court considered whether the executor should have his costs out of the estate unless he had acted unreasonably. Scrutton LJ warned: "I should be reluctant to do anything to create the idea that unsuccessful litigants might get their costs out of the estate, without making a very strong case on [the] facts. The lure of "costs out of the estate" is responsible for much unnecessary litigation."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Donald Campbell v Pollak; HL 1927 - [1927] AC 732; [1927] All ER 1
 
Medway Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Continental Contractors Ltd [1929] AC 88
1929
HL
Viscount Haldane
Costs
The court set down the principles to be applied when apportioning costs between a claim and counterclaim. Where both the claim and the counter-claim are dismissed with costs, the amount that the Claimant will recover in defeating the counter-claim are the costs that arose solely defending the counter-claim, (for example counsel's fee for settling the defence to counterclaim) together with costs that were common to both claim and counterclaim. Absent a special direction by the court as to the apportionment of costs between the parties, any such order made on a detailed assessment will produce an element of injustice between the parties in a case where the same issue arises on both claim and counterclaim. Viscount Haldane said: "The distinction, between division and apportionment may in certain circumstances be a thin one" but it was fundamental.
There may be items which on their face are single but in reality double, that is, in part relate to the claim and in part relate to the counter-claim; and, will add, in part to one issue and in part to another: "In such cases there must be a division".
1 Citers


 
Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation [1929] AC 344; (1929) 26 LJ Ch 233; (1929) 140 LT 50; (1929) 93 JP 121; (1929) 45 TLR 219; (1929) 73 Sol Jo 109; (1929) 27 LGR 243
1929
HL

Litigation Practice, Costs
The Act of 1893 provided that a successful defendant should be entitled to costs as between solicitor and client in an action in respect of "any act done in the pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament or of any public duty or authority" Held: This applied also to a quia timet action, where the action of the defendant, was anticipated but has not been actually completed
Public Authorities Protection Act 1893
1 Cites


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.