| Fiji Islands - Charan v Suva City Council - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1173 OF 1984
BETWEEN:
SURESH SUSHIL CHANDRA CHARAN &
ANURADHA CHARAN
Plaintiffs
AND:
SUVA CITY COUNCIL
Defendant
Mr. S. Charan, 1st Plaintiff in Person
Ms. T. Jayatilleke for the Defendant
DECISION
REVIEW OF TAXATION
On 15.10.92 the Taxation of Bill of Costs was concluded and taxed at $3216.50; an Interim Certificate of Taxation was signed by me
on 4th December, 1992.
The First Plaintiff has now pursuant to Order 62 Rule 32 (Review by taxing officer) of the High Court Rules 1988 made an application
objecting to the disallowance by me in part or whole of certain items referred to in his "Objections to Taxation of Bill of
Costs" filed on 23rd November, 1992 as set out therein together with his reasons.
The application was heard by me on 11th March 1993 in the presence of the 1st Plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the "Plaintiff")
in person and Ms Tamara Jayatilleke, counsel for the Defendant.
The Defendant filed its written Objection to the application on 18th March 1993 and the Plaintiff filed a Reply thereto on 24.4.93.
Since I proceeded on leave I was unable to give my decision before now.
I have given careful consideration in this review to the Defendant's submission and that of the Plaintiff (bearing in mind the authorities
referred to by him) and have come to the decisions as follows in regard to the items enumerated in the said "Objection to taxation
of Bill of Costs":
(a) As for Items 1 to 13 and 17 and 19
The Plaintiff's reason for objection is that these are fees "for legal advice properly incurred not taxable".
I am not satisfied that that is so.
The Plaintiff states that taxation of these Bill of Costs started on 13.10.1988 before the then Deputy Registrar to whom documents
in support of fees for legal advice were tendered.
I have nothing before me nor could I find anything except a photocopy of a statement showing, inter alia, an amount of $976.00 in
action no. 1173/84 handed over by the Plaintiff in this taxation.
For my purposes this statement is not admissible and sufficient to enable me to consider this aspect of the matter.
The authorities referred to by the Plaintiff in his Reply do not assist him.
In any case Or.62 Rule 27(1) & (2) govern a case of this nature and in accordance with that Rule I have allowed amounts on every
item except on items 4, 10 and 11 where nothing was allowed.
Hence no variation is made in respect of the above items.
(b) As for Items 14, 15 and 16
Order 62 Rule 27(2) allows for a sum not exceeding two-thirds. I have allowed on items 14 & 15 sums which I considered were appropriate
and disallowed item 16.
On review I now allow two-thirds of the $20 claimed, namely $13.67. This is the amount which the Plaintiff is asking.
(c) As for Item 18
Under Order Rule 27(2) I have allowed the sum of $200 which I considered appropriate.
No variation is made to this amount.
(d) As for Item 20
Allowance has already been made in full for preparation and issuing of subpoenas (5 of them in item 56 of Original of Bill of Costs).
This item 20 for Praecipe is merely duplicating the claim and there is no such item in Appendix 2 of the Rules which enables me to
allow it.
Hence no variation is made.
(e) As for Item 21
The claim was for $175 for 3 sets comprising of 272 pages per set.
I allowed $75.
On this review I will now allow a further sum of $100.
(f) As for Item 22
Photocopying of authorities is not allowable in the circumstances of this case.
Hence no variation is made.
(g) As for Item 23
A reasonable amount has been allowed.
Hence no variation is made.
(h) As for Item 24
The Plaintiff is entitled to 5 meals at $3.50 per meal and this I have allowed.
Hence no variation is made.
(i) As for Item 25
This matter did not come before me for taxation hence no question of refusal to tax arises. The Plaintiff concedes this in his Reply.
(j) As for Item 26
The Plaintiff consented to 10% interest and this is shown in the records; it was on this basis that the sum of $1109.60 as interest
was added to make the total sum of $3356.50 being the taxed amount (before deducting by consent costs in favour of Defendant). The
Plaintiff cannot now turn around and complain about it. In any case I consider 10% as a reasonable rate of interest.
(k) As for Item 27
On 19.11.92 the Plaintiff consented to the sum of $90 being costs in favour of the Defendant as ordered by Byrne J. on 22.8.90 to
be deducted from the taxed costs of $3356.50. A further sum of $50 was also deducted by consent thus leaving the balance of $3216.50
as the taxed costs (as shown in the said Interim Certificate of taxation).
In the circumstances I see no merits in the Plaintiff's assertion on this item in the Plaintiff's submission in his Reply.
Hence no variation is made.
Dated the 26th day of July, 1993
D. PATHIK
(Chief Registrar, High Court)
Hbc1173.84d
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1993/2.html
