Buckland v Watts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J0507-2 |
| Date | 07 May 1969 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1969] EWCA Civ J0507-2
Lord Justice Danckwerts,
Mr Justice John Stephenson and
Sir Gordon Willmer.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The APPELLANT (Plaintiff) appeared in person.
Mr S. HYDLEMAN (instructed by Messrs Judge & Priestley - Bromley, Kent) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
These are two appeals, one from an Order of His Honour Judge- Trapnell, given at the Bromley County Court on the 15th January, 1969 and the other one is an appeal from Mr Justice Donaldson in respect of a Judgment and an Order given by him on the 19th March, 1969.
Mr Buckland, the Appellant, has conducted his case himself in person, and he has done it very well, but thematters with which we are concerned depend on principle in one case and on a question of discretion in the other.
They both arise out of litigation between Mr Buckland and professional persons whom he employed in regard to the purchase of a house. One action, against Mr Watts, was an action complaining that Mr Watts had been guilty of negligence in not pointing out to Mr Buckland, who was employing him to make a survey, matters of wet and dry rot in regard to a house, which was of vital importance because the existence of them prevented Mr Buckland getting a mortgage from a building society which would have enabled him to complete the purchase, and, as a result of that, he was unable to complete the purchase. The other action was against a solicitor, Mr Mackesy, who acted as solicitor for Mr Buckland, and it was claimed did not give him proper, skilful advice in regard to the matter of the purchase of the house. In both cases the actions went to the Court of Appeal. Mr Buckland was successful in the action against Mr Watts and was awarded a sum of £161 damages. The action against the solicitor, Mr Mackesy, however, failed. The present matter is the question of the costs which were awarded to Mr Buckland in regard to his successful appeal.
The charges which have been disallowed by the Judges who dealt with the matter so far consist in a large part of charges which Mr Buckland has claimed to be compensated for, consisting of expenditure of very considerable time by him in the preparation of the documents and in the case which he conducted against Mr Watts. That seems to me a matter of principle in that respect, and it seems to me that the principle is well settled that though a solicitor who acts" in person for himself can claim to be remunerated for his professional services so far as they are not rendered unnecessary or impossible - as, for instance, in regard to consultations with himself, and that sort of thing - suchcosts are recoverable by the solicitor, but in the case of a layman who is not a skilled legal person, he can only recover his out of pockets.
The matter arises from long origin and goes back a very long way. Costs were not recoverable or considered apparently in early times, but the Statute of Gloucester, which was 6 Edward I, Chapter 1, provided for costs in the first instance, and then the matter was developed by the Statute of 23 Henry VIII, Chapter 15. On that basis, certain principles have been established by decisions of the Courts which regulate the matters with which we are concerned. There is a passage in 2 Coke's Institute, at page 288, in which it appears that legal expenses can be claimed, but not such expenses for loss of time, travel, and so on.
The matter then came before the Courts in two cases to which we have been referred, the case of Harold v. Smith, decided in 1866 and reported in 5 Hurlstone and Norman at page 381, and 167 English Reports at page 1239, Baron Bramwell made some observations about litigants receiving indemnities in respect of their costs, which are not, it seems to me very helpful in regard to the present case. But there was a later case, London Scottish Benefit Society v. Chorley, Crawford and Chester, which came before the Queen's Bench Division in 1884, reported in 12 Queen's Bench Division, 452, and in the Court of Appeal in 13 Queen's Bench Division, 872. This was a case of a claim by a solicitor who had acted for himself in proceedings. There Lord Justice Bowen delivered a Judgment which I find most satisfactory and the clearest Judgment on the subject. He said: "A great principle, which underlies the administration of the English law, is F that the Courts are open to everyone, and that no complaint can be entertained of trouble and anxiety caused by an action begun maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para-Protect Europe Ltd and Others
...not to permit him to charge for it when it is done by his own clerk." 30 London Scottish Benefit Society v. Chorley was followed in Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 WLR 70, in which a lay litigant in person was refused recovery in respect of his time spent on his case. Sir Gordon Willmer said, a......
- Ly v Jenkins
-
Jonathan Alexander Ltd v Proctor
...private expenditure of labour and trouble by a layman cannot be measured." 39 These remarks were approved and applied by this court in Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 QB 27. 40 The enactment of the 1975 Act was intended to enable the court to provide that a litigant in person, who would otherwise......
- Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association
-
Litigation
...had there not been a settlement: James Longley & Co Ltd v South West Regional Health Authority (1983) 25 BLR 56. 1053 Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 QB 27 at 37, per Sir Gordon Willmer. 1054 In re Nossen’s Letter Patent [1969] 1 WLR 638 at 643–644, per Lloyd-Jacob J; Amec Process & Energy Ltd v ......
-
Table of Cases
...41, [1988] O.J. No. 1893 (Dist. Ct.) ..................................................................... 70 Buckland v. Watts, [1970] 1 Q.B. 27 (C.A.) .......................................................... 39 Buleychuk v. Danson (1992), 8 O.R. (3d) 762, 7 C.P.C. (3d) 232, [1992] O.J. ......
-
Costs and Access to Justice
..., [2006] O.J. No. 1667 (Div. Ct.). 35 London Scottish Benefits Society v. Chorley (1884), 13 Q.B.D. 872 (C.A.); Buckland v. Watts , [1970] 1 Q.B. 27; Millar v. Macdonald (1892), 14 P.R. 449 (Ont. H.C.J.); Kendall v. Hunt (No. 2) (1979), 106 D.L.R. (3d) 277 (B.C.C.A.), overruled in Skid-mor......