W v G (Costs: Taxation)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1993 |
| Court | Family Division |
Eastham, J sitting with District Judge Lamb and Mr David Salter as Assessors
Costs – taxation – mother claiming financial provision for child – millionaire father – proceedings compromised – father agreeing to pay mother's costs – whether rate claimed by mother should be allowed – whether claim for accountant's report should be allowed.
In 1984 the parties, who were not married, had a child. The father was a millionaire. In 1990 the mother commenced proceedings in the High Court seeking financial provision for the child. The proceedings were compromised in December 1991 and a consent order was made for the father to pay a lump sum and periodical payments, with additional payments for holidays and school fees. It was agreed that he should pay the mother's costs.
The mother's solicitors submitted their bill of costs for taxation. At the taxation, solicitors acting for both parties appeared. The mother's case had been conducted by the senior partner. The solicitor for the father accepted that the skill and responsibility of a senior partner was appropriate in this case. The mother's solicitor claimed an hourly rate of £70. He produced a letter from the Leeds Law Society summarizing the results of a survey of their members and a certificate from his accountants. The survey showed that the average expense rate for a solicitor of the experience of the mother's solicitor in that area was £70.39 an hour and the certificate showed the expense rate for the firm was £70.55 an hour. The deputy district judge taxed off £10 an hour, thereby allowing £60 an hour. He stated that he did not accept that this was a matter which could not have been dealt with by a junior partner, assistant solicitor, or legal representative. The mother's solicitor also claimed a mark-up of 70 per cent. The father's solicitor submitted that if a claim of £70 was allowed, a mark-up of 70 per cent would yield a result on the high side. The deputy district judge reduced the mark-up to 60 per cent.
The mother's solicitor had obtained an accountant's report. This was sought and prepared on the basis of what was a reasonable amount for a child to claim against a wealthy putative father. The solicitor claimed £460 plus VAT for the report. The deputy district judge allowed the item in full but made the father liable for only half of it, the other half appearing as an item in the legal aid taxation. The amount claimed as the cost of taxation was £402.50 and £102.50 was taxed off by the deputy district judge.
The mother appealed.
Held – allowing the appeal: There was no justification for taxing off £10 an hour from the hourly amount claimed. An overwhelming case for the £70 an hour claimed was presented to the deputy district judge by the Leeds Law Society survey and the certificate from the solicitors' accountants and there was no contrary evidence. Therefore the full amount of £70 an hour claimed would be restored. That having been done, the reduced mark-up of 60 per cent would be confirmed as this produced a reasonable figure. So far as the accountant's report was concerned, although a claim for such a report should be disallowed in a reasonably simple maintenance case, the present case was exceptional. The senior partner would have been justified in expending additional time in preparing such a document himself. Consequently, it was reasonable for him to delegate this part of his task to an accountant at fees considerably lower than his own. The whole of that item would be allowed on the inter partes taxation. The sum originally claimed for the cost of taxation was reasonable. No sum should have been taxed off and that item should be allowed in full.
Case referred to in judgment:L v L (Legal Aid Taxation)[1994] 2 FCR 185.
Victor Zermansky, solicitor, for the applicant.
Timothy Porritt, solicitor, for the respondent.
Judgment Mr Justice Eastham.This is an appeal by the applicant, Miss W, against the decision of a deputy district judge on his taxation of her bill of costs, and the particulars...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re R (Costs) (Child Abduction)
...4081 of 1989) [1995] 2 All ER 155. Supreme Court Taxing Office Practice Direction (No 2 of 1991) [1993] 1 WLR 12. W v G (Costs: Taxation)[1994] 2 FCR 200. Nicholas Bacon for the solicitors. MR JUSTICE CAZALET.This is a review of the decision of District Judge Maple made on 2 December 1993. ......