DAHIBAI Vs. SUNDERJI DAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the matter of this taxation in suit No. 21 of 1904, 1 have gone through the papers with the utmost care that I could and have heard Mr. Mody yesterday and also heard the excellent argument of Mr. Lowndes on the subject of taxation.

(2.) It has been urged before me in the first place that looking at Mr. Justice Scott's Order which said that if the Taxing Master increased the costs of Mr. Kanga, Mr. Kanga should have his costs, if he did not do so Mr. Kanga should lose his costs, I have no power to go into the question of the review again I must say I regret that the case could not have gone before Mr. Justice Scott again so that he might have dealt with it as he was originally seized of it and he made the original order but as that is impossible now it is useless to say anything more about it.

(3.) It seems to me that looking at Mr. Justice Scott's judgment, it is clear that he intended to lay down a principle to be followed by the Taxing Master. I refer to the passage in his judgment where he says :. " It is pointed out to me by the Advocate General that the costs of an expert qualifying himself to give expert evidence in a case are allowed on taxing in England and I think that upon the analogy of such allowances the Taxing Master should take into consideration the amount of special work which was done by Mr. Kanga in this case and should make his allowance accordingly without being bound by the fact that it appears in the bill of costs as a part of a lump sum charged for the preparation of the brief but taking into consideration that it is in fact a charge for work which would not ordinarily fall upon the solicitor in the preparation of the brief."