Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC062

royal court

(Samedi Division)

24^th April 2006 

Application to overturn the decision of the Assistant Judicial Greffier of the 4^th January, 2006 regarding taxation of costs.

Mr T. A. Picot in person.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is the judgment of the Court.  This is an appeal by Terence Allan Picot to whom I shall refer as "the appellant' against an order of the Assistant Judicial Greffier taxing a bill of costs arising from proceedings instituted by Remo Rochelle Limited to whom I refer as "the respondent".

2.        The respondent was not present, nor represented at the hearing, although the Greffier had received a letter written by Mr Eric Fay, who is, I understand, the principal of the respondent.  Mr Fay could not be present due to his age and frailty and did not intend to instruct counsel.  That was unfortunate, but in the event I decided that I could hear the appeal in the absence of the respondent.

3.        I wish to make two preliminary points.

(i)        Mr Picot presented his arguments precisely and with great courtesy.  He also filed a skeleton argument which assisted me greatly to understand the points that he was making.

(ii)       It is invariably the case that the taxation of a bill of costs involves an exercise of discretion.  That discretion is brought to bear by a taxing officer with considerable experience in the field who has had the great advantage looking at the files and of immersing himself in the issues raised in the proceedings.  He may also have had the advantage of hearing oral as well as receiving written submissions.

4.        A court sitting on appeal from the exercise of a taxing officer's discretion is not likely to disturb the reasoned findings of that officer unless it is satisfied that he has been wrong in law, or principle, or has reached an unreasonable decision.

5.        Mr Picot made four points in relation to his appeal against the taxing officer's decision. 

(i)        He contends that a Factor B uplift ought to be applied throughout.  The Assistant Judicial Greffier's finding in relation to this contention was as follows:

"As a litigant in person you are not entitled to claim an uplift or Factor B rate.  This 'uplift' is intended as a further allowance for a lawyer's care and conduct of a particular case.  I refer you to paragraph 1.4 of Appendix 'A' to Practice Direction RC05/11 where it is stated that:

"It is also intended to reflect those imponderable factors, for example, general supervision of subordinate staff..... and the element of commercial profit"

As a litigant in person, you may not claim an element of commercial profit."

Mr Picot pointed out that the respondent had, through the lawyers acting for it, made concessions in relation to uplifts and in particular in relation to Factor 'B' and I can understand why he might feel aggrieved that that concession had not been reflected in the order made by the taxing officer. 

Nonetheless, in my judgment the Assistant Judicial Greffier was entirely right to make the finding which he did make.

6.        Points (ii) and (iv).  Mr Picot submitted that a minimum of 140 hours should have been allowed for the work undertaken in relation to discovery.  160 hours had originally been claimed, but only 98 had been allowed.  In similar vein, Mr Picot submitted that the time allowed for the preparation of the bill of costs had been insufficient.  A minimum of 30 hours should in his submission have been allowed whereas in fact the taxing officer allowed only 14 hours.  I have considered carefully, both in the context of the documents drawn to my attention by Mr Picot and the file as a whole, whether the decision of the Assistant Judicial Greffier could be described as 'unreasonable'.  I do not consider that either decision can be characterised in that way.

7.        As to point (iii) Mr Picot submitted that the costs of his assistant should have been allowed.  His assistant is and was his daughter who is currently a university law student.  Mr Picot contended that she had been of great assistance to him and that her contribution had effectively cut down the amount of time needed for the trial.  The Assistant Judicial Greffier had noted that the respondent's lawyer was not assisted by another fee earner and had found that it was not appropriate to require the paid party to pay for such assistance.

8.        Mr Picot had pointed out to me that the respondent's advocate had had a secretary in Court taking notes but the cost of such a secretary would of course not be specifically recoverable and would have been embraced by the lawyer's time costs.  There may, of course, be circumstances where it is appropriate for a litigant in person to have professional assistance, the costs of which may be recoverable from the other side.  The Assistant Judicial Greffier found that this was not such a case, and in my judgment he was right.

9.        It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.  The respondent not having appeared or been represented there will be no order for the costs of this appeal.

No Authorities