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.’
Judges:
Vaughan Williams, Stirling, Romer LLJ
Citations:
[1905] 2 Ch 137
Cited by:
Cited – Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
Cited – Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump Llp ChD 17-Nov-2010
The company borrowed money from a bank, who instructed the defendants to act in the loan. On recovering the loan, the borrowers challenged the amounts charged by the solicitors. The court was asked what were the powers for a third party paying a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Costs
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.426442