that the said solr do, within fourteen days after notice hereof, deliver to the Petr a bill of fees and disbursements in all suits, causes, actions, and other matters of business in which he has been employed as the solr for the said C., deceased; And that it be referred &c. to tax and settle the said bill, and that the Petr and also the said solr do produce &c.; And that they be examined &c.; And it is ordered, that the said solr do give credit for all sums of money by him received of or on account of the said C., deceased, and be at liberty to charge all sums of money paid by him to or on account of the said C., deceased.— Usual directions as in Form 1, sup., adding after "Petr" the words as such admor, or exor."

66

3. Order to continue Proceedings and carry on Taxation after

Payment.

UPON motion &c. by counsel for M. of &c., who alleged that by an order dated &c., It was ordered that it should be referred to the taxing master to tax and settle the bill of fees, charges, and disbursements, amounting to the sum of £-, delivered by the above-named S. &c. (the solicitors) to T. in the said order named and paid by him to the said solrs on &c. (that no proceedings have been taken under the said order dated &c.), and that the said T. died on &c. intestate, and that on the &c. letters of admon of his estate were granted to the said M. whereby she became and now is his legal pers. represve; Let the said order and the proceedings thereunder be continued, and the taxation thereby directed be carried on between the said M. and the said solrs; And Let the said M. and the solrs produce &c., and be examined &c. ; And Let the said solrs give credit &c. [Form 1, p. 230]; and in case it shall appear the said bill is overpaid, Let &c. [see Section VI., p. 246].-See Re Sankey, V.-C. W., 25th Nov. 1872, B. 3039.

As to orders to revive proceedings which had abated since taxation was directed, see Re Nicholson, Re Waugh, 29 Beav. 665, 666.

By the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870 (33 & 34 V. c. 28), s. 19, "any person interested under a decree or order" for payment of costs in any suit may obtain an order to revive such suit, and thereupon to prosecute and

enforce such decree or order.

This section did not enable a solr, to whom costs have been ordered to be paid, to obtain an order to revive: Hunter v. Wortley, W. N. (73) 4.

The practice in cases where, formerly, by marriage, death, or bankruptcy, &c., an order of revivor would have been required, has been simplified by O. XVII. 2, 4, under which an order to carry on proceedings may be obtained ex parte on application to the Court or a Judge, or by petition of course, or in Chambers: Walker v. Blackmore, W. N. (76) 132 ; and v. sup. Chap. IX., "CHANGE OF PARTIES," p. 105.

For order to proceed with a taxation against the surviving Plts in the absence of a legal pers. represve of one deceased, see Aspden v. Seddon, W. N. (77) 207; 1877, A. 1766.

4. Costs of a Deceased Solr and Exor moderated, though no longer

Taxable.

[The testator's solr and exor retained his costs out of the assets. Many years afterwards, under a decree for the usual admon accounts, the solr's

represve claimed such payment as a discharge. Although the bill was no longer taxable, the beneficiaries were allowed to have it moderated.]

"VARY the order dated &c., by striking out &c., and the direction to tax and settle &c.; And instead thereof, Let the taxing master inquire and certify whether any and which of the disputed items marked &c., in the bills referred to are fair and proper to be allowed, and to (any and) what amount respectively."-No costs on either side.-Jarvis v. Allen, 4 Ch. 616, 23 June, 1869, A. 2148.

For order in similar form as to items in bill of costs delivered to testator which were disputed by exor, see Re Park, Coles v. Park, 41 Ch. Div. 326. As to the power of the Court to direct the taxing officer to assist in settling an account which consists in part of any bill of costs, see O. LXV. 27 (26).

SECTION IX.-REVIEW OF TAXATION.

1. Order for Review of Taxation-Costs of Application— Set-off. THE application of J. &c., to review the certificate dated &c. of the taxation of the bill of costs &c., which, upon hearing the solrs for the applicant and for the L. Co. in Chambers, was adjourned to be heard in Court, coming on this day to be heard accordingly, and upon hearing counsel &c.; And the Court being of opinion that such of the items of the said bill of costs, and charges, and expenses as relate to the examination of the title to the hereditaments comprised in Lot 2, part of the estates directed to be sold by the order dated &c., ought to be disallowed, Doth order that it be referred to the said taxing master to review his said certificate.-Costs of the applicant in Chambers, and of drawing up this order and consequent thereon, to be taxed, and set off against any costs, and costs, charges, and expenses to be paid by the applicant to the said company under the said order dated &c.Raymond v. Lakeman, M. R., 27 March, 1865, B. 1317.

2. Review of Taxation-O. LXV. 41..

THE application of the Deft, which upon hearing &c. was adjourned &c., and upon hearing counsel for the Deft and for the Plt; And the Court being of opinion that on the taxation of the costs under the judgment dated &c. the Plt is liable to pay the whole of the Deft's costs, except so far as they have been increased by the Deft's counter-claim, and that there ought to be no apportionment of the Deft's general costs of the action, and that the Deft is liable to pay to the Plt only the amount by which the Plt's costs have been increased by the Deft's counterclaim; Let it be referred to the taxing master to review his taxation accordingly.-Saner v. Bilton, Fry, J., 19 March, 1879, B. 648.

3. Review of Taxation-Order on Objections-Costs apportioned

Set-off.

THE application of the Plt to review the taxing master's certificate, dated &c., which, upon hearing the solrs for the applicant and for the Deft in Chambers, was adjourned to be heard in Court, coming on this day to be heard accordingly, and upon hearing counsel for the Plt and for the Deft, and upon reading the objections &c.; Let the said taxing master's certificate stand and be allowed as to the subject-matter of the first objection, and be varied as to the subject-matter of the second objection, by the disallowance of three counsel to the Deft, and by allowing the Deft two counsel only on the trial of this action and counter-claim; And Let it be referred to the taxing master to tax the costs of the Plt and of the Deft of this application; And Let the Plt pay the amount of three-fourths of the said costs and the Deft pay one-fourth of the said costs; And Let the amount of the costs of the Plt be set-off against the costs of the Deft, having regard to the variation in the said taxing master's certificate, and the taxing master is to certify to whom the balance is to be paid.-Directions for payment.-Mason v. Brentini, V.-C. M., 5 June, 1880, B. 1354; affirmed on appeal, 1880, B. 1642, 15 Ch. Div. 287.

4. Objections to Taxing Master's Certificate-Subsequent Order as to

Costs.

UPON the application of A. &c., and upon reading the order dated &c., the objections dated &c. left by the applicants with the taxing master, the taxing master's certificate dated &c., and the affidavits therein referred to, Let the said objections dated &c., so far as they relate to the items in Part 2 thereof, be allowed; And Let it be referred back to the taxing master to vary his certificate accordingly.-Tax the costs of the applicants of obtaining the said order, and of the taxation thereby directed, and deduct the same from the amount which shall appear to be due from the applicants to the solrs.-The balance to be certified, and to be paid by the applicants to the solrs within twentyone days from the date of the taxing master's certificate.-Re Cartwright, M. R., 13 Nov. 1875, A. 2305.

5. Objections to Taxing Master's Certificate.

LET the objections No. 1 &c. left by the applicant with the taxing master be allowed; And Let it be referred back to the taxing master to vary his certificate accordingly.-Re Searle, M. R. at Chambers, 4 Dec. 1872, B. 3137.

For order to review taxation on application made before certificate, see Coulton v. Senior, V.-C. H. at Chambers, 4 Nov. 1878, A. 2059.

REVIEW.

By O. LXV. 27 (39-42), any party dissatisfied with the allowance or disallowance by the taxing officer of the whole or any part of any item

the same.

or items, may at any time before the certificate or allocatur is signed, deliver to the other party interested therein, and carry in before the taxing officer, an objection in writing to such allowance or disallowance, specifying therein the items or parts objected to, and the grounds and reasons for such objection, and apply to the taxing officer to review the taxation in respect of Upon such application the taxing officer shall reconsider and review his taxation upon such objections, and may, if he think fit, receive further evidence, and if so required by either party he shall state, either in his certificate of taxation or allocatur, or by reference to such objection, the grounds and reasons of his decision, and any special facts or circumstances relating thereto. Any party dissatisfied with the certificate or allocatur as to any item, &c. objected to may apply to a Judge at Chambers for an order to review the taxation as to the same item, &c., and the Judge may thereupon make such order as he may deem just, but the certificate or allocatur shall be final and conclusive as to all matters not objected to in manner aforesaid. Such application shall be heard and determined by the Judge upon the evidence brought in before the taxing officer, and no further evidence shall be received upon the hearing unless the Judge shall otherwise direct.

Where a person not a party to an order for taxation desires to have the taxation reviewed, he should not apply to review, but should move to set aside the order: Charlton v. C., 31 W. R. 237.

Where a taxing master, on the day on which the objections were carried in, gave notice that they would be proceeded with the next day, it was held under the circumstances sufficient: Re Hill, 33 Ch. Div. 266.

The application to review is by summons, and not on motion: Webster v. Manby, 4 Ch. 372; unless made to the junior Judge of the Chancery Division for the time being with no chamber staff: Millard v. Burroughes, W. N. (79) 198; and cannot be entertained unless an objection in writing, under r. 27 (39), as to each item objected to has been first carried in: Strousberg v. Saunders, 38 W. R. 117.

If the objection is to the general principle on which the taxation has proceeded, and not to specific items, the certificate may be discharged on summons, without carrying in objections under r. 27 (39): Re Castle, 36

Ch. D. 194.

As a general rule, the certificate is reviewed on questions of principle only, and not of mere quantum, which is left to the discretion of the taxing master: Re Mortimer, 4 Eq. 96; Alsop v. Lord Oxford, 1 M. & K. 564; Re Catlin, 18 Beav. 508.

And the discretion of the taxing master applies not only to the quantum, but to the quoties, e. g., in the case of interviews, to the number of interviews as well as to the sum to be allowed for each: Re Brown, 4 Eq. 464.

66

On the other hand, the allowance of the higher instead of the lower scale was a question of principle on which the taxation would be reviewed: Paddon v. Winch, 20 Eq. 449. And see Morgan and Wurtzburg, Costs," 576. And the Court or a Judge has now discretion, on special grounds arising out of the nature and importance, or the difficulty or urgency of the case, to order the higher scale to be applied in any particular case: O. LXV. 9; Paine v. Chisholm, (1891) 1 Q. B. 531; but not to delegate such discretion to the master: Corticene, &c. Co. v. Tull & Co., 27 W. R. 373. On the question whether special grounds in fact existed, an appeal will lie: Paine v. Chisholm, sup.

The taxation of counsel's fees, solr's charges, separate appearances, and other items not involving any question of principle, is not, as a general rule, open to review: Parkinson v. IIanbury, 13 W. R. 1056; Cousens v. C., 7 Ch. 48; A. G. v. Drapers' Co., 9 Eq. 69; Webb's Estate, 21 W. R. 745; Beattie v. Lord Ebury, 22 W. R. 68; Merchants' Bank Co. v. Maud, 20 Eq. 453. But, in a proper case, the certificate may be reviewed even upon questions of quantum: Smith v. Buller, 19 Eq. 473; especially as to counsel's fees on the hearing of an appeal; a question which the Court below is best able to decide: Gilbert v. Guignon, 21 W. R. 745; and see Mason v. Brentini, 15 Ch. Div. 287.

The following cases, upon the discretion of the taxing master, may also be consulted: Re Harrison, 33 Ch. D. 52; Re Page, 32 Beav. 485, 487; Hallows v. Fernie, 16 W. R. 175; Potter v. Rankin, L. R. 4 C. P. 76; 5 ib. 518; Yglesias v. Royal Exchange, &c. Corporation, L. R. 5 C. P. 141; Ryan v. Dolan, I. R. 7 Eq. 92; Wakefield v. Brown, L. R. 9 C. P. 410.

VOL. I.

8

ALLOWANCES.

The costs of proceedings in the Supreme Court of Judicature are regulated by 0. LXV.; but in special matters of pleading, discretion is given to the taxing officer, in lieu of the allowances for instructions, and preparing or drawing, to make such allowance for work, labour, and expenses of preparation, as he may think proper: see Turuball v. Janson, 3 C. P. D. 264. He may also make special allowance in respect of agency correspondence in country agency causes and matters, when it is shown to have been special and extensive: O. LXV. 27 10.

In matters at Chambers, which from the length of the attendance, or difficulty of the case, or from the extraordinary skill and labour required and received from the solr, shall appear to deserve higher remuneration than the ordinary fees, the Judge or master may allow the solr, by a memorandum made for the purpose and signed by the Judge, a fee not exceeding ten guineas, instead of the fees of two guineas, three guineas, and five guineas: Ib. 12.

By r. 27 (38), all fees or allowances which are discretionary, are, unless otherwise provided, to be allowed at the discretion of the taxing officer, who is to take into consideration the other fees and allowances to the solr and counsel, if any, in respect of the work to which any such allowance applies, the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the amount involved, the interest of the parties, the fund or persons to bear the costs, the general conduct and costs of the proceedings, and all other circumstances.

By r. 27 (38a) (R. S. C. May, 1889), where costs directed to be taxed, with a view to payment out of a fund or estate (real or personal), or out of the assets of a co. in liquidation, shall have been increased by unnecessary delay, or by improper, vexatious, or unnecessary proceedings, or by other misconduct or negligence, or if from any other cause the amount of the costs, in the opinion of the taxing master, is excessive, having regard to the value of the fund, estate, or assets to which they relate, or other circumstances, the taxing master is to allow only such an amount of costs as would, in his opinion, have been incurred if the litigation had been properly conducted, and to assess the same at a gross sum, and (if necessary) apportion the amount among the parties.

By O. LXII. 15, the registrar shall, at the time of any attendance before him for the purpose of settling the terms of, and passing any judgment or order, if requested to do so by any party, on the ground that it is of a special nature, or of unusual length or difficulty, certify, for the information of the taxing officer, whether, in his opinion, any special allowance ought to be made in taxation of costs in respect thereof."

And for the rule under the former practice as to solrs' remuneration for particular services, and their right to charge for services warranted by practice, though not absolutely necessary, see Lucas v. Peacock, 8 Beav. 1; Davenport v. Stafford, Ib. 503, 516; Stephens v. L. Newborough, 11 Beav. 403. As to payments to be entered in the bill of costs, and allowed as professional charges and disbursements, see certificate of taxing masters in Re Remnant, 11 Beav. 603, 611; Re Lamb, 23 Q. B. D. 5.

Items in a bill of costs will not be disallowed solely on the ground that the solr at the particular time was uncertificated: Re Jones, 9 Eq. 63. And see Fullalove v. Parker, 8 Jur. N.S. 1078; Holdgate v. Slight, 21 L. J. Q. B. 74; Re Hope, 7 Ch. 766. Payment of costs of proceedings taken by an uncertificated solr cannot be enforced: Verlander v. Eddolls, 51 L. J. Q. B. 55; Fowler v. Monmouthshire Canal Co., 4 Q. B. D. 334; Irving v. Sanger, 58 L. J. Q. B. 64; 59 L. T. N.S. 894; affirmed, C. A., 5 Times Law Reports, 171.

The following are instances of allowance or disallowance on review of particular items (except where otherwise indicated) as between party and party :

Abstracts of Title:

Are not included in the words "deeds, wills, and other documents," cited in Schedule II. to Gen. Ord., August, 1882 (Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881), and the old scale of 68. 8d. for perusal of every brief sheet of eight folios each remains unaltered: Re R. A. Parker, 29 Ch. D. 199.

For disallowance of costs of abstract of title to accompany case for counsel,