Re Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1852 |
| Date | 14 January 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 599
ROLLS COURT
[417] He willeams. Jan. 14, 1852. Taxation ordered of an unpaid bill of costs, eighteen months after its delivery, the " special circumstances " being, that it was delivered long after application for it, on the eve of the client going abroad, and contained substantial overcharges, not acquiesced in. This was a special petition for the taxation of the solicitor's bills before payment, but more than twelve months after delivery. The Petitioner, Mr. Parry, had employed Mr. Williams as his solicitor, and, in 1848, had made application for his bills of costs. The bills, amounting to 600, were delivered on the 10th of January 1850, on the eve of the Petitioner proceeding to the south of Europe, as he said for the benefit of his wife's health, though it was alleged to be for other causes. He had ever since remained abroad. Disputes having arisen as to the amount due on the bills, and the Petitioner requiring his title-deed, [418] which the solicitor declined to give up until payment of his bills, this petition for taxation was presented on the Nth of November 1851. It appeared, from an affidavit in support of the application, that the Respondent had charged in his bill for three hundred and twenty brief sheets of abstracts, which, according to the strict rule laid down in Re Walsh (12 Beav. 490), was an excess of one hundred and three sheets. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. W. A. Collins, in support of the application, argued that there were in this case sufficient " special circumstances " to authorise a taxation. The bill was unpaid, and nothing had been done since the delivery, and that it was but reasonable that the proper amount should be ascertained, there being a manifest overcharge in respect of the abstracts. They argued also, that the Petitioner was not liable for part of the business clone, and they cited In re Elmslie (12 Beav. 538). Mr. Groodeve, contra. The Petitioner might have obtained an order of course, and if it is necesaary to come by special petition, he should allege and prove specific items of overcharge. Here none are alleged ; and the one stated in the affidavit as to the abstracts is an error, arising from the constant practice of the profession down to the decision in Re Walsh (12 Beav. 490). Nearly two years have elapsed since the delivery of the bills, and there are no sufficient special circumstances to justify a taxation. A jury would be the proper tribunal to try the question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmonds v Goater
...to her wishes. I shall most likely want to consult you respecting my little property there, as I have an idea of parting with [416] it, 15 BEAV. 417. RE WILLIAMS 599 as I understand it has been very much neglected; being such a distance from me, it's impossible to attend to it as I could wi......
-
George James Nicholson, a Solicitor ex parte Johnson and 6 & 7 Vict c 73
...it is not necessary that they should be such as to shew an actual fraudulent intent; Pit Strother (3 K."& J. 518); Re, Williams (15 Beav. 417). Then again the bills are excessively voluminous, extending over twenty-seven years and requiring a long time for their examination. They are mixed ......