Shamrock Trading Company Ltd v Chief Surveyor

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 20 December 1979
• Neutral Citation: BB 1979 HC 62
• Docket Number: No. 140 of 1978
• Date: 20 December 1979
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

High Court

Williams, J.

No. 140 of 1978

Shamrock Trading Co. Ltd.

and

Chief Surveyor

Mr. A. Phillips, S. C., and Mr. Greaves for the plaintiff.

The Attorney General, Miss Goodridge and Miss Osborne for the defendant.

Practice and procedure - Costs — Taxation of costs

Williams, J.

1 On October 19, 1978 judgment was given in the High Court for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $1,535,683.38 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from October 19, 1978 until the date of payment. The plaintiff was also awarded costs certified for two counsel.

2 On February 28, 1979 the Registrar taxed the plaintiff's bill of costs and the plaintiff being dissatisfied with the allowance with respect to the fees of his attorneys-at-law, objected thereto and applied for a consideration and review of the said taxation.

3 On May 28, 1979 the Registrar gave his decision on the application and the plaintiff now seeks a review of the Registrar's taxation.

4 The point of dissatisfaction is the allowance of $60,852.00 in the taxed bill of costs for the fees of the plaintiff's attorneys-at-law.

5 Mr. Phillips complains that the Registrar did not exercise his discretion in the proper judicial manner and that he proceeded on wrong principles.

6 Mr. Phillips was especially critical of the following passage in the Registrar's decision –

“I have determined that the sum of $52,000.00 is the appropriate fee for the attorney-at-law on the record. However, as there was no need for a full preparation of this case, the 50% of the fee that is usually assigned to the preparation of the case will be reduced by approximately 2/3 rds.”

7 Counsel also took issue with this earlier passage from the decision –

“Attorney-at-law for the plaintiff submitted a claim to the Chief Surveyor under section 6 of the Land Acquistion Act, Cap. 228. Subsequently, the said attorney-at-law for the plaintiff was instructed to bring this action. I find that, in the circumstances, the work done and the expense and time involved in taking instructions from the plaintiff, interviewing necessary witnesses, preparing the summons and all necessary documents and necessary consultations must have been at a minimum.”

8 He contends that the reasons given by the Registrar for reducing the fees of the plaintiff's attorneys cannot be sustained in law or in fact. His submission is that the Registrar should not have concerned himself with the fact that the plaintiff claimed and was awarded an amount of compensation for legal fees incurred in the preparation of his claim. The taxation, he contends, must proceed independently and without regard to the claim for compensation.

9 Reliance is placed on L. C. C. v. Tobin [1959] 1 W. L. R. 354 at p. 371 where Wynn-Parry, J., said –

“The second question is posed by the tribunal in effect in this way: whether on the findings of fact they came to a correct decision in law in determining that the legal expenses and accountants' fees incurred by the claimant in preparing his claim in response to the notice to treat formed a proper subject of compensation and were correctly included in their award? In my view the tribunal were right. It can be said of course, and it was said that it was unsatisfactory that the legal costs of compiling the claim, and the legal costs incurred in prosecuting a reference, should be assessed, to use a mutual phrase, by different persons; the first set of legal expenses by the tribunal in investigating the claim, and the second set by the Registrar of the tribunal or a taxing master. I have some sympathy for this view but I do not see how it could...