BETWEEN:
SURESH SUSHIL CHANDRA CHAamp;
ANURADHA CHARAN
Plaintiffs
AND:span>
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 l of Costs was concluded and taxed at $3216.50; an Interim Certificate of Taxation was signed
by me on 4th December, 1992.
The Plaintiff has now pursuantsuant 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.
Tplication was heard by me o 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 unas unable to give my decision before now.
I have given careful cful 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 this that these are fees "for legal advice properly incurred not taxable".
I am not satisfied that that is so.
The Plaintiff states that taxatioxation 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 $976.00ction
no. 1173/84 handed oved over by the Plaintiff in this taxation.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; line-height: 12.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> For my purposes this statement is not admissible and sufficient to enable me to consider this aspect of the matter.
In any case Or.62 Rule 27(1); (2) govern a case of this 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.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; line-height: 12.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hence no variation iion is made in respect of the above items.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; line-height: 12.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> (b) As for Iter Items 14, 15 and 16
O62 Rule 27(2) allows for a or 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 allo>allow two-thirds of the $20 claimed, namely $13.67. This is the amount which the Plaintiff is asking.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; line-height: 12.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> (c) As for Item 18
Under Order Rule 27(2) I have allowed the sume sum of $200 which I considered appropriate.
No variation is m is made to this amount.
(d)
Allowance has already been made 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 $175 for 3 sets comprising of 272 pages per set.
I allowed $75. $75.
On this review I will nowl now allow a further sum of $100.
(f) As for Item Item 22
Photocopying of authorities is not allowable in the circumstances of this case.
ass=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; line-height: 12.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hence no variation is made.
(g) As for Item Item 23
A reasonable amount has been allowed.
Hence no variation is made.
(>As for Item 24<
The Plaintiff is entitled tled to 5 meals at $3.50 per meal and this I have allowed.
Hence no variation is made.
(iAs for Item 25
This matter did not come beme 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 rest 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 conseconsented 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 ints in the Plaintiff's assertion on this item in the Plaintiff's submission in his Reply.
Hence no variation is made.
>
Date 26th day of July, 1993
D. PATHIK
(Chief Registrar, High High Court)
Hbc1173.84d
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1993/2.html
