COSTS FIXED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18758, 15 July 1935, Page 11

COSTS FIXED

APPELLANT’S CLAIM CONDUCTS HIS OWN CASE What costs in the Court- of Appeal should he allowed an appellant who conducted his case in person was decided in a reserved judgment read by Mr Justice, Blair in the Court of Apical in the case of William Douglas t.ysnar v. the National Bank of New Zealand, Limited. The court allowed £ls together with the items for drawing and settling the case, cost of printing, and court disbursements. The motion was heard by Mr Justice Blair. Mr .Justice Smith, and Mr Justice Kennedy. Mr A. B. Buxton appeared for appellant-, and Mr G. R. Powles for respondent. ■'Had Mr Lysnar employed one or more counsel to argue his appeal in this court, the utmost allowance lie could have got would have been costs on tlie highest scale,” said Mr Justice Blair. ‘‘As he employed no counsel but argued the. ease himself, lie can make, no claim for counsel’s fees as having been disbursed by him. If an ordinary litigant had paid counsel's fees amounting, say, to SCOgns., all he, would have been allowed would be as per the Court- of Appeal scale. "If we acceded to the submission now made on Mr Lysnar’s behalf that- the full scale fees should be allowed him we would be affording him special' preferential treatment not hitherto given to any other successful litigant in this court. "As an alternative argument it was submitted that the item ‘setting down and arguing case- to judgment’ involved a considerable amount of solicitor’s work, and that the appellant could, if necessary. show that he had incurred considerable solicitor’s costs incidental to getting ready for the argument of the appeal. Assuming that he could do so it would not, in my opinion, help him, because the. work involved in setting down is merely a clerk’s attendance at the court office to tile the necessary papers and pay the- court fees. Virtually, the whole of the item is in relation io counsel’s fee. On this head we are of opinion that tiie appellant is not- entitled lo anything except- his disbursements. “The respondent is willing that a sum of £ls be. allowed to appellant together with the items for drawing and settling case, cost of printing and court disbursements. We think this is an ample allowance and does not overlook the circumstance that the appellant resided in Gisborne, and fully recognises the principle To he deduced from the, English eases when due allowance is made for the difference between the English and our party and parly scale of costs.”