Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This case is reported ante ut supra.

On the case being brought up for approval of the Auditor's report, the pursuers objected to the report in so far as the Auditor had disallowed certain fees to the amount in all of £487, 19s. 2d.

The fees charged for senior counsel at the proof had been reduced from thirty guineas per diem to twenty guineas, and the fees charged for junior counsel from twenty guineas per diem to fifteen guineas. For the hearing in the Inner House the fees to counsel had been reduced from twenty guineas and fifteen guineas per diem to fifteen guineas and ten guineas respectively.

The case was one of great complexity. The proof and hearing on evidence occupied twelve days, and the hearing in the Inner House occupied nine days.

The pursuers also objected to the reduction of a fee of £214, 10s. charged for a certified skilled witness, Mr William Hannay Campbell, naval architect, Glasgow, to £67, 7s. 6d. In the account rendered by Mr Campbell, and paid by the pursuers, he charged the sum now claimed by the pursuers for fifty-nine days employed by him in “professional services rendered to Messrs Burrell & Son in their action against Messrs Russell & Company.” The professional services referred to consisted in making calculations, models, plans and sections, preparing to give evidence, and attending consultations, and Court to give evidence.

Argued for pursuers—1. Considering the great complexity and importance of the case, it would be reasonable to allow double the ordinary fees to counsel for each day of the proof and of the hearing in the Inner House. That course was justified by practice— Tannett, Walker, & Company v. Hannay & Sons, January 31, 1874, 1 R. 440; Duke of Buccleuch v. Cowan and Others, July 12, 1867, 5 Macph. 1054; Neilson v. Barclay, July 19, 1870, 8 Macph. 1011. 2. The Auditor had only allowed the leading skilled witness £67 for work which had occupied him fifty—nine days. In the case of the Duke of Buccleuch, supra, five guineas per day had been allowed to a similar witness. The same had been allowed in the case of Gillespie v. Russell, March 2, 1855, 17 D. 532.

Argued for defenders—(1) There was a distinction in the matter of counsel's fees between proofs and jury trials, the rate allowed being higher in the latter— Wilson v. North British Railway Co., Dec. 13, 1873, 1 R. 304; Campbell v. Ord and Maddison, Nov. 5, 1873, 1 R. 149. (2) The witness in question was not in the position of a leading expert, being merely a subordinate official. Moreover, the information which he supplied had been to a great extent obtained by him for the purposes of the contract between the parties, and not for use at the trial.