SOLICITORS’ COSTS

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 149, 18 March 1924, Page 8

SOLICITORS’ COSTS

MOTION TO REVIEW TAXATION APPEAL DISMISSED The subject of costs was befoi« the Court of Appeal yesterday when Ernest T. Sutherland appealed from a decision of Mr. Justice Stringer in. dismissing a motion to review taxation.: Rt-spondents were Gordon J. C. Bennett and Clifford M. N. Jacobsen solicitors, of Auckland. Air. G. Hutchison,, appeared for appellant, and Air. 1. I'leming for respondents. It was stated that Bennett and Jacobsen retained the services of Sutherland to act for them in legal business, included in which was the raising of a loan of £2500 upon security of a mortgage for £3OOO, which Sutherland held, over certain lands. The loan was effected by means of sun-mortgage, and was arranged through another solicitor, A. T. Duthie, whose charges in connection uitli the loan aniounixid io £4B 12s. Amongst other items, making up the amount were procuration fee £25 and fee for preparing sub-mort-gage £l5 15s. Bennett aiid Jacobsen received tho amount of the han, £2500, less Duthie’s charges amounting to £29 Bs. In July last am order was made by consent for tho taxation, of Bennett and Jacobsen’s costs, which took place before the Registrar, who allowed the amount of Duthie’s charges amounting to £4B 125., ami after making certain deductions im Bennett and. Jacobsen’s charges, found they wers entitled to have charged £35 175., in respect of work done, and for which they had accepted £29 Bs. A motion was taken in the Supreme Court before Air. Justice Stringer to review the taxation, the items allowed by tho Registrar, and which were objected, to being, procuratiotn fee £25, preparing sub-mortgage £l5 155., perusing and approving sub-mortgage £7 17s« His Honour, in dismissing the motion said that the suggestion that the document had caused Sutherland “serious financial embarassment’ was purely imaginary. If lie claimed to have suffered loss through the failure cf the solicitor to protect his interests pn preparing the sub-mortgage, his proper course was to bring an action for damages for negligence. In arguing the case, Air. Hutchison! urged that it was not a matter which should have been decided by the L’egistrar at 'all. If the procuration Tee was not a professional charge it should moi have appeared on the bill of costs. The Court, which comprised the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Air. Justice Sim, and Air. Justice Salmond, considered that" appellant had failed to prove his case, and dismissed the appeal without calling upon respondent.