Re Remnant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 949
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 374. See In re Haigh, 1849, 12 Beav. 310; In re Lamb, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 6; In re Kingdon and Wilson [1902], 2 Ch. 248; In re Buckwell v. Berkeley [1902], 2 Ch. 599. Distinguished, In re Fletcher and Dyson [1903], 2 Ch. 688.
i fis; -3 X/3; T V -,, ,._ -, [603] In re remnant. April 18, June 23, 1849. .-':- - .. [S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 374. See In re Haigh, 1849, 12 Beav. 310; In re Lamb, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 6; In re Kingdon awl Wilson [1902], 2 Ch. 248; In re Buckwell v. Berkeley \\$W], 2 Ch. 599. Distinguished, In re Fletcher and Dyson [1903], 2 Ch. 688.] The costs of taxation depend on whether one-sixth is taken off the bill of costs ; and to determine this, a distinction is to be made between strictly professional charges 950 IN BE REMNANT 11 BEAV. 604. and disbursements, and independent cash payments. Those payments only which are made in pursuance of the professional duty undertaken by the solicitor, and which he is bound to perform, or which are sanctioned as professional payments, by the general and established custom and practice of the profession, ought to be entered and allowed as professional disbursements in the bill of costs. Other disbursements ought to be included in a separate cash account. In a legal proceeding, A. became liable to pay 60. This was paid by B., his solicitor, who had not acted for A. in the proceeding. Held that, in a taxation as between A. and B., the 60 was not properly included in B.'s bill of costs, for the purpose of determining whether one-sixth had been taxed off, although it was properly chargeable as a cash payment. This was a petition for liberty to except to the certificate of the Taxing Master. It appeared, that from 1845 to February 1848, Remnant was employed by Taylor, au executor, in the general affairs of the executorship, except only as to a dispute with one Johnson. As to this matter Remnant had written two letters ; but the subsequent proceedings at law against Johnson were conducted by another solicitor, Smallpiece. In the result of the action and subsequent proceeding between Taylor and Johnson, Taylor became liable to pay 64, 18s. 6d. for costs, and, threats having been made to compel payment, Remnant again interposed and acted in the matter as solicitor for Taylor. He entered into a negotiation, but without success, and ultimately, at the request of Taylor, he gave his undertaking to pay these costs, and paid them accordingly, out of monies of his own, he not having at the time in hand sufficient monies of Taylor to pay the amount. It appeared that no monies of Taylor had been specifically appropriated or applied for such payment. On the 1st of June Remnant delivered his general bill of costs, containing charges for his negotiation with and [604] payment to Johnson, and including, as a professional charge, the sum of 64, 18s. 6d. paid by him on behalf of Taylor. He also charged in the same account a sum of 28, 18s. which had been paid by him for Taylor, to proctors, for the expenses of proving the will. On the 1st of July 1848, Taylor obtained an order of course for the taxation of Remnant's bill of coats, and it was ordered, that Remnant should give credit for all sums of money, by him received of or on account of Taylor, and that he should be at liberty to charge all sums of money, paid by him to or on account of the Petitioner. In the course of the taxation, the Taxing Master had struck out this payment of 64, 18s. 6d. from the bill of costs; but he allowed it as a cash payment. The omission created this difference :-By including it, less than one-sixth was struck off, and the costs of taxation, under the Act (6 & 7 Viet. c. 73, s. 37), fell on the client; but by excluding it, the costs fell on the solicitor. The Taxing Master had, however, allowed the charge of 28, 18s. paid to the proctors to remain in the bill as a professional item. Mr. Remnant presented a petition for liberty to except to the Master's certificate. He insisted, that this sum of 64, 18s. 6d. ought not to have been excluded from the bill, in determining whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Adam Aman, Re; Hoesin bin Ghani v PP
-
Ms Nicky Herbert v HH Law Ltd
...which describes these 2 as those payments which a solicitor is bound either by law or custom to make. 60 This reflects the decision in In re Remnant (1849) 11 Beav. 603 where, having taken advice from the Taxing Masters, Lord Langdale MR concluded that ‘It appears to me, that it is the prac......
-
Nicky Herbert v H H Law Ltd
...was to be classified as a “solicitor's disbursement”, the Judge referred to Friston on Costs: Law and Practice (2 nd ed), Re Remnant (1849) 11 Beav. 603, Re Buckwell & Berkeley [1902] 2 Ch 596, Re Blair & Girling [1906] 2 KB 131, the Access to Justice Act 1999 s.29, Hollins v Russell [20......
-
Mong Man Wai v H H Lau & Co (A Firm
...money on account or not) as for example, court fees, counsel's fees, expenses of witnesses, agents, stationers or printers": Re Remnant (1849) 11 Beav 603, 611; see also Re Buckwell and Berkeley [1902] 2 Ch 596; Butterworths at para. L [106]; Cordery on Solicitors (loose-leaf edition) vol. ......