Nicholson v Little
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE BIRKETT,LORD JUSTICE PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J0607-2 |
| Date | 07 June 1956 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1956] EWCA Civ J0607-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Denning
Lord Justice Birkett and
Lord Justice Parker
MR T.H. TILLING (instructed by Messrs Gard, Lyall Bridgman & Co., agents for Messrs Theodore Bell, Cotton & Curtis, Sutton, Surrey) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
MR DONALD SUMNER, M.P. (instrructed by Mr. R.W. Platt) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
This case concerns costs. The owner of a number of properties employed a surveyor in regard to the war damage. The war damage money was received by the surveyor. He paid some of it over to the owner of the houses until there was left in hits hands the sum of £64, 6s, 5d., monies belonging to the owner of the houses paid by the War Damage Commission, When the owner asked for that money to be paid to him by the surveyor the surveyor claimed to retain it on account of his fees. Indeedhe said that there was considerably mere than £84. 6s. 5d. due to him: he said that altogether, for his fees, there wan a sum of £105, 4s, 10d. due to him. The owner from time to time wrote for his £84. The surveyor did not pay. Eventually the owner issued a plaint in the County Court for the £84. In his Defence the surveyor said he admitted that he had received a sum of£84, 6s, 5d from the War Damage Commission but he claimed to set off an equal amount of the fees due to him; and he put in a Counterclaim for £105, 4s. 10d. The owner agreed that some email amount of fees was owing, but nowhere near £105. In the result the County Court Judge said that the surveyor was not entitled to the full £105 fees which he claimed but that the sum due for fees was only £6l. 19s. 6d. So that meant that the surveyor had kept too much of the Plaintiff's money: he had kept the whole £84. 6s. 5d; the Judge said that was wrong and that there was on balance the sum of £22. 6s. 11d. due to the house owner from the surveyor.
That was the result of the litigation. Then the matter of costs arose. On behalf of the surveyor it was said that the whole fight was on the Counterclaim for his fees, that that was the issue which took the time, and that he should have the whole costs, subject to the nominal costs of the Plaintiff setting down the case. The Judge was referred to what has been called the Dutch Match case (N.V. Amsterdamsche Lucifersfabricken v. H. &. N. Trading Agencies Limited. 1940, 1 All England Reports, page 587); but, notwithstanding that case, the Judge said that he was not going to give the surveyor his costs. He gave the Plaintiff, the houseowner, the costs, He said: "I decided the point taken as to costs, against the Defendant. In view of the plea of set-off there is no real admission. The Plaintiff had to come to Court and fight to recover anything, and he has recovered £22. 6s. 11d". So he gave judgment for the Plaintiff for. £22. 6s. 11d., with costs on Scale 2, and dismissed the Counterclaim.
From that decision the surveyor appeals to this Court, He has again rolled on the Dutch Match case, which he says wasfollowed in a later case in this Court of Child v. Blacker (1954, 2. All England Reports, page 243). He says that in the face of those authorities the County Court Judge had no option but to give the surveyor the costs. I desire to say at once that those cases cannot be regarded as laying down a rule of law which would fatter the discretion of the Judge. The Rule of Court (County Court Order 47, Rule 1) says: Subject to the previsions of any Act or Rule the costs of proceedings in a County Court shall be in the discretion of the Court". In the face of thet Rule it is impossible for this Court or any other Court to lay down a rule of law as to costs which would fatter the discretion thus given to the Judge. It is interesting to notice that in ( "The Friedeberg" 1885, 54 Law Journal, Probate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v Sparrow
...the exercise of a discretion by a County Court Judge in relation to costs, unless he has gone wrong in principle: (See, for example, Nicholson -v- Little (1956) 2 All England, 699 to which Mr Sparrow referred us). 39 The learned Judge gave two express reasons for making the order for costs ......
-
Square Mile Partnership Ltd v Fitzmaurice McCall Ltd
...that this was of any significance for the purpose of the arguments before me. 8 Mr. Trace relied on three authorities. The first was Nicholson v. Little [1956] 1 WLR 829. That was obviously a case significantly before the CPRs. The case started with a surveyor who had been acting for the c......
- Box v Midland Bank Ltd
-
Universal Cycles Plc (Claimant/Appellant) v Grangebriar Ltd
...admitted, so it is right to say that all the argument was on the counterclaim. It was distinguished by this court in the later case of Nicholson v Little [1956] 1 WLR 829, where the court pointed out that it does not lay down a rule of law fettering the discretion of the trial court. Emphas......