BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Welsh v. Russell [1894] ScotLR 31_654 (19 May 1894) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1894/31SLR0654.html Cite as: [1894] ScotLR 31_654, [1894] SLR 31_654 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 654↓
Supra, p. 611.
A party having been found entitled to expenses, objection was taken to the Auditor's report on the ground that he ought in taxing the account to have disallowed the expense of the proof in the case. The Court repelled the objection, holding that the question whether the expense of the proof should have been disallowed was one for the Court and not the Auditor to decide.
In this case the First Division dismissed the action as incompetent, and found the defender entitled to expenses. The pursuer now objected to the Auditor's report on the ground that he ought to have disallowed the whole expense of the proof, in the exercise of the power given him by the regulations contained in the Act of Sederunt of 15th July 1876.
The fifth of the general regulations as to the taxation of accounts contained in that Act provides as follows—“Notwithstanding that a party shall be found entitled to expenses generally, yet if on the taxation of the account it shall appear that there is any particular part or branch of the litigation in which such party has proved unsuccessful, or that any part of the expense has been occasioned through his own fault, he shall not be allowed the expense of such parts or branches of the proceedings.”
It was argued for the pursuer that the necessity for a proof had been caused by the nature of the defence stated, and that as the proof had turned out to be unnecessary the Auditor should have disallowed the whole expense of it.
The defender argued, inter alia—The regulation referred to did not enable the Auditor to disallow a party found entitled to expenses the expense of the proof. The question whether that expense should be disallowed was for the Court not the Auditor, and it was too late to raise it now.
At advising—
Page: 655↓
The
Counsel for the Pursuer— Clyde. Agents— Dove & Lockhart, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender— Salvesen. Agents— E. A. & F. Hunter & Company, W.S.
