Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This case is reported ante ut supra.

On March 26, 1906, the Lord Ordinary ( Dundas) after a four days' proof (March 5 to 8), and a two days' hearing (March 14 and 15), had pronounced an interlocutor making findings. The defenders reclaimed, but the First Division after a four days' hearing (February 18 to 21, 1907), on March 15, 1907, pronounced this interlocutor—“Adhere to the said interlocutor except quoad the second and eighth findings in lieu of which findings find (second) that the pursuers are entitled to charge in respect of the girder work in dispute at the rate of 13s. 3d. per hundredweight, and (eighth) that the pursuers are entitled to interest upon the sums for which decree falls to be pronounced in their favour at the rate of 4 per centum per annum from

Page: 789↓

13th October 1899 to the date of raising the action, viz., 24th October 1902, and thereafter at the rate of 5 per centum per annum till payment: Therefore find the defenders liable to the pursuers under the first conclusion of the summons in the sum of £3486, 4s. 3d., and under the second conclusion in the sum of £3724, 4s. 7d., both with interest as aforesaid, and decern: Find the pursuers entitled to expenses both in the Outer and Inner House, subject to deduction of one-fourth of the taxed amount thereof as modification, and remit. …”

The pursuers (respondents) presented a note of objections to the Auditor's report. The objections were as to the fees allowed to counsel.

The fees charged and those allowed by the Auditor were:—

Date. 1906.		Fees charged	Fees allowed by Auditor.
Mar. 5.	Senior Counsel for Proof	£33 1 6	£22 1 0
Mar.5.	Junior Counsel	22 1 0	16 10 9
Mar. 6.	Senior Counsel	33 1 6	16 10 9
Mar.6.	Junior Counsel	22 1 0	13 4 7
Mar. 7.	Senior Counsel	33 1 6	16 10 9
Mar.7.	Junior Counsel	22 1 0	13 4 7
Mar. 8.	Senior Counsel	33 1 6	16 10 9
Mar.8.	Junior Counsel	22 1 0	13 4 7
Mar. 14.	Senior Counsel for Hearing	16 10 9	13 4 7
Mar.14.	Junior Counsel	10 17 6	4 9 0
Mar.14.	Agent	1 13 4	1 10 0
Mar. 15.	Senior Counsel	16 10 9	13 4 7
Mar.15.	Junior Counsel	10 17 6	4 9 0
Mar.15.	Agent	1 13 4	1 10 0
1907. Feb. 18.	Senior Counsel for Hearing (Inner House)	22 1 0	16 10 9
Feb.18.	Junior Counsel	16 10 9	13 4 7
Feb. 19.	Senior Counsel	22 1 0	13 4 7
Feb.19.	Junior Counsel	16 10 9	10 17 6
Feb.19.	Agent	2 0 0	1 13 4
Feb. 20.	Senior Counsel	22 1 0	13 4 7
Feb.20.	Junior Counsel	16 10 9	10 17 6
Feb.20.	Agent	2 0 0	1 13 4
Feb. 21.	Senior Counsel	16 10 9	13 4 7
		£414 19 2	£260 15 8
Taxed off		154 3 6
			£414 19 2

(The fee of ten guineas charged for junior counsel on February 21 was not altered.)

Argued for the pursuers (respondents and objectors)—The Auditor had erred here in not considering the amount which was at stake in the cause, £10,917 having been sued for, and its complicated nature involving much preparation. These two facts entitled counsel to higher fees than would otherwise have been allowed— Shaw & Shaw v.J.&T. Boyd, Limited, March 7, 1907, ante, p. 460. Fees of twenty-five and fifteen guineas a-day to senior and junior counsel respectively at a jury trial had been allowed, and that in a case of less financial importance and less complexity— Rees v. Henderson, May 28, 1902, 4 F. 813, 39 S.L.R. 640. The fees charged should be allowed.

Argued for the defenders (reclaimers)—The Auditor was right, and his taxation should be upheld. Fees similar to those he had allowed had been approved in other cases of lengthy proofs— Burrell & Son v. Russell & Company, October 24, 1900, 3 F. 12, 38 S.L.R. 8. Rees v. Henderson, cit. sup., was not in point, being a jury trial, and counsel in jury trials being entitled to higher fees— Wilson v. North British Railway Company, December 13, 1873, 1 R. 304, 11 S.L.R. 155.