Daniels v Lambeth London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 1996 |
| Date | 23 May 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Beldam and Lord Justice Pill
Costs - scale maximum - discretion to allow more
A district judge, on finding that a bill for £3,436 represented costs fairly and reasonably incurred and that the scale maximum was only £1,180, correctly exercised his discretionary powers under Order 38, rule 9 of the County Court Rules to allow more, when he took into account the extent to which he was departing from the scale and awarded 70 per cent more than the scale maximum instead of the full amount.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing an appeal by the plaintiff, Jacqueline Jane Daniels, from a decision of Judge James, sitting with two assessors, in Lambeth County Court on May 5, 1994 upholding a decision by District Judge Jacey on December 2, 1993, to allow only £2,000, on the inter partes claim, on a tenant's action for disrepair against the defendants, the London Borough of Lambeth which had been settled for £1,500 and costs on County Court Scale 1.
Order 38, rule 9 of the County Court Rules 1981 provides:
"(1) When in any proceedings in which the costs are to be taxed, the judge is satisfied from the nature of the case or the conduct of the proceedings that the costs which may be allowed in taxation may be inadequate in the circumstances, he may give a certificate under this rule.
"(2) Where a certificate is given under this rule the (district judge), may, if he thinks fit, allow on taxation such larger sum as he thinks reasonable in respect of all or any of the items in the relevant scale except item 5.
"(3) If he decides to exercise his powers under paragraph (2), the (district judge), in determining the sum to be allowed in respect of any item, shall have regard to, but shall not be limited by, the amount allowable in respect of that item in the next higher scale, if any…
"(5) Where no direction has been given by the judge that this paragraph shall not apply, the (district judge) may, if satisfied as to the matters mentioned in para graph (1), exercise on taxation the powers conferred by paragraph (2) as if a certificate had been given under this rule."
Mr Jonathan Simpkiss for the appellant plaintiff; Mr Jeremy Morgan for Lambeth.
LORD JUSTICE BELDAM said that counsel for the plaintiff had maintained that once the district judge had, in the exercise of his discretion, decided that the sum allowed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elizabeth Mary Joyce Broadbridge v Jim Robert Kenworthy Pardoe (Defendant/Applicant)
... ... COUNTY COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC2 ... Lord Justice Nourse ... Lord Justice Hutchison ... words 'Scale 1 with discretion; no capping under Daniels'." ... 12 That is a reference to a ... Court of Appeal in the case of ( Daniels v London Borough of Lambeth The Times, 18th October 1996) by considering the ... ...