MR TOO HIGH

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 6, 6 July 1935, Page 27

MR TOO HIGH

COURT COSTS

CHEAPER LAW POSSIBLE

FORMER JUDGE'S VIEWS

"Cosses" is the flippant slang of the attorney's clerk' for costs—one of the two great blots on the administration of justice..' : ; The first and worst is costs. -. The second is delay. The curse of costs is twofold. In the first place .this bogy prevents many persons, of slender' means from enforcing a just claim 01 resisting an unjust one, though these are the very persons upon whom _such prevention weighs most crushingly writes Sir Edward Acton in the-"Daily Mail." People with no means have the Poor Persons' Department, which does excellent service, supported by the unselfish devotion of many members of the Bar; but those who have means, though not enough to play with, are outside the scope of this institutions beneficence. In the second place, when one does embark on the sea of litigation, no one can tell where costs are going to stop ' —the sky's the limit- -^ ■■"■'.■ Most of us remember .'he story in "Bleak House", (vouched as true by the author) of Gridley, the mai. from Shropshire, ruined and dying in beggary, with his whole estate, left to him by his father's will, all gone in costs, through no fault, of his; and some may recall that the father of the immortal Gulliver, after being nearly ruined by being concerned in several Chancery suits, had his ruin finally completed by getting a decree in his favour with full costs. There have been many reforms since the days of "Bleak House" and "Gulliver's Travels"; but there are Gridleys and Gullivers among us even today i ■ Here is a case in point, not on the Gridleyan scale, but fact, not fiction, to be read in the cold print of the Law Reports.: A tradesman of modest means had a dispute with a railway company about damage to goods carried by them, j It involved a point of law; "and though the amount at stake was small, the principle was important. - , •■■■.' \ APPEAL ALLOWED. The case began in a county court and the. judge gave the tradesman judgment with costs. The company appealed to a divisional court, which .in those days happened to consist ot three judges. They unanimously upheld the county court judge and dismissed the appeal with costs. The company, still dissatisfied, went to the Court of Appeal. - ~ It was presided over by a famous and most learned Lord Justice who agreed with the courts below, but the other two members of -the court took a contrary view, and accordingly .thtf appeal was allowed, though apparently with some indulgence as to the costs there. Nevertheless, 'the tradesman, as may be supposed, found himself faced with an appalling sum in costs. Now observe his point of view. He had merely wanted to have the question of principle settled: he would cheerfully have accepted an idverse judgment in the county court; he had five judges in his favour .against two for the other side; and yet he not only lost his case but.was also,faced with this smashing liability for costs.1 •' "Oh, well," says the lawyer, "hard cases-make bad : law." "Not"so," :replies^the- litigant, "it is bad law thai makes hard • cases." ■ iNqwit is possible^ without being a Communist or a Socialist, to maintain that of all things in this perplexing life justice ought (if it be practicable) to be free to all—free as the air on the high road, remembering always; that air fit to breathe and roads fit to travel mean rates. That every free man is entitled, if it be possible, to free jus tice is, or ought to be, a truism—justice in this dontext meaning access to the courts of law and full opportunity to obtain their decisions: not obstract justice, that "inviolable shade" which none can clutch nor the" most visionary theorist discern of define. , LAW OPEN TO EVERYBODY. As things are, "the law is open to everybody—like the Ritz Hotel," as judicial wit is reputed to have phrased it. Alas! for the limitations. If "possible," and if "practicable." Well, it is certainly not impossible. Can it be made practicable? If so, it must surely ultimately be on lines somewhat analogous to those of our National JHealth Insurance. If health, why not justice? Could not a democratic public, or that large section of it most concerned, be induced to accept.a liability to create by small contributions, in the interest of all, a national litigation insurance fund, out of which the cost to contributors of all litigation, including the remuneration. of the legal profession, would be defrayed? The legislative, and administrative assistance of the State, would no doubt be required, and possibly, to begin with, some financial assistance as Well: and there would have to be safeguards (as in the Poor Persons' Department) against frivolous and vexatious claims or untenable and procrastinative defences; and the scheme would, of course, be concerned with nothing but the costs of. litigation. , ■ ; It might be so organised as to inter fere no more with the lawyers than the panel system with the doctors,,and it might indeed prove a boon to the legal profession. On the other hand, it would be no obstacle to those who desired and could afford it to hie them to the Harley Street of the legal ;profession. Sir Patrick Hastings and Mr. Norman Birkett and —dare one add?— Sir Stafford Cripps could go on earning those fees to which their learning and abilities entitle them. But Gulliver senior and Gridley could sleep in peace. After all, most sensible men insure against fire and burglary, arid litigation is a calamity which may befall anyone at any time, with results' perhaps rrore disastrous than a conflagration and a cat burglary rolled into one. Difficult? Yes. Likely to arouse criticism and derision? Yes. A "poor 'ole" perhaps for the shelter of our Gullivers and Gridleys. Well, if you know a better, show it them. They need it, poor, fellows!... ...