John Haigh v John Ousey and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1857 |
| Date | 27 April 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1360
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 217; 3 Jur. N. S. 634; 5 W. R. 523. Dicta followed, Blake v. Hummell, 1884, 51 L. T. 430. Approved, Cobbett v. Wood, [1908] 1 K. B. 595.
john haigh against john ousey and others. Monday, April 27th, 1857. Action by a solicitor to recover the amount in his bill. Plea, No signed bill delivered. A signed bill was proved to have been delivered. It contained items for business done in a cause, without any statement as to what Court the cause was in. The nature of the business was not auch as to shew conclusively whether the action was in one of the Superior Courts at Westminster or not. The bill contained other items admitted to be unobjectionably described. On a rule to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that this was not a compliance with the statute : -Held that, the description of the business being such as was reasonably sufficient, when coupled with what must have been known to the client, to give information as to the charges, none of the items were objectionable, and the solicitor might recover his whole bill.-Held also that, even if some items had been badly described, the solicitor might, notwithstanding, recover for the items in his bill sufficiently described. [S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 217 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 634; 5 W. R. 523. Dicta followed, Blake v, Hummell, 1884, 51 L. T. 430. Approved, Cobbett v. Wood, [1908] 1 K. B. 595.] Action for work and labour a.s an attorney. Plea,: No signed bill delivered, Issue thereon, 7 EL. & BL. B19. HAIQH V. OUSEY 1361 On the trial, before Erie J., at the sittings at Westminster in last Hilary Term, it appeared tbat there was a signed bill delivered in due time, which contained charges for business transacted in different suits, the items in which were as usual classed together under different heads. In one of those, which was headed "yourselves ats. Walker," ware charges for the following items. ""Attending on the charges of plaintiff's attorneys herein." "Writing for particulars." "Letter to agent, with instructions for settlement." "Instructions to defend." "Agent perusing correspondence, and attending plaintiff's attorneys ; conferring and inspecting original writ; arranging amount of costs ; when, under the circumstances, plaintiffs attorneys agreed to accept 19s. 6d. in discharge of debt and costs." There was nothing else in the bill to indicate the nature of this [579] action. Several of the other actions, in respect of which charges were made, appeared on the face of the bill to have been actions in the Superior Courts at Westminster. The learned Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, with leave to move to enter a verdict for the defendants if on this bill he was entitled to it. Maniety, in that Term, obtained a rule Nisi accordingly, on the ground that " the plaintiff's bill of coats did not state the Court in which the business charged for was done, and is not in accordance with the statute." When the rule was called on for argument, and the notes of the trial read, the Court called on Matiisty, for the defendants, to point out the items which he considered most objectionable ; he selected the charges under the head of " yourselves ats. Walker " before mentioned, and some others; but, as the objections to those latter items were similar in principle, it is unnecessary for the purposes of this report to state any more particulars of the bill. Rew now shewed cause. The first question is whether there really is any objection to any of the items. The nature of the business charged for in the suit of Walker v. Ousey and Others, coupled with what the defendants themselves must have known, sufficiently indicates that it must have been an action in one of the Superior Courts at Westminster. It is not necessary that the bill should be so worded as to exclude all possibility of ingenious perversion. If it gives reasonable information it is enough ; Cook v. Gillard (1 E. & B. 26). [Erie J. In Roy v. Tuner (26 Law Times, 150) the Court of Exchequer seem to have [580] treated that decision as inconsistent with Ivimey v. Marks (16 M. & W. 843), arid did not follow it. And in Pigot v. Cadman (1 H. & N. 837) Ivimey v. Marks (16 M. & W. 843) was acted upon to its full extent.] In Roy v. Turner (26 Law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong Sen
... ... In Haigh v Ousey (1857) 7 E & B 578, Lord Campbell CJ ruled that a ... ...
-
Ralph Hume Garry (A Firm) v Gwillim
...– compare section 68 of the 1974 Act. 22 Section 37 was the subject of a number of Victorian decisions. We were only referred to Haigh v Ousey (1857) 7 El. & Bl. 578. I have found it necessary to look at two of the earlier decisions referred to in that case. The first is Keene v Ward (1849)......
-
JWR Pte Ltd v Syn Kok Kay (trading as Patrick Chin Syn & Co)
...to taxation … 15 Patteson J’s statement was referred to and followed in subsequent cases. In John Haigh v John Ousey (1857) 7 El & Bl 578; 119 ER 1360 (“Haigh v Ousey”), Lord Campbell CJ ruled that a bill must disclose on the face of it sufficient information as to the nature of the charges......
-
Kao Lee & Yip (A Firm) v Carey & Lui (A Firm)
...to this and surprisingly the most succinct warning of the danger of computer printouts was in fact a case heard in 1857, Haigh v Ousey 7E & B578, which held the bill ought to be drawn so as to enable the client to judge it's fairness, a solicitor to advise on it and a taxing officer to judg......