Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Daniel Baillie and others, pursuers, lodged a note of objections to the Auditor's report on their account of expenses in an action by them against the Licensing Court of Motherwell and others, defenders ( v. ante 54 S.L.R. 58).

The pursuers were forty-seven in number and were the whole of the licence-holders of all kinds in the burgh of Motherwell. The action concluded, inter alia, for reduction of the proceedings in the Licensing and Licensing Appeal Courts at Motherwell, at which, without any objections being stated, the Licensing Court had refused to renew the pursuers' certificates in so far as they authorised the sale of spirits, and the Appeal Court had adhered. In each case a separate deliverance was issued by the Licensing Court. The pursuers were successful in the litigation, and on 7th December 1916 the Court found the defenders first called (the Licensing Court) liable jointly and severally to the pursuers in expenses.

The Auditor having disallowed certain items in their account of expenses, the pursuers lodged a note of objections in the following terms:—

“The pursuers object to the Auditor's report, dated 18th January 1917, in so far as the Auditor has disallowed the following items, viz.—

Revision of Summons by Senior Counsel.

Page	1916.		Amount of charge.	Taxed Off.
1.	May 18.	At junior counsel's request, charge. Taxed Off. instructing senior counsel, Hon. Wm. Watson, K.C., to revise summons	£0 10 0	£0 10 0
	May 18.	Paid him fee, and clerk	3 8 0	3 8 0
	May 19.	19. Perusing summons as revised by senior counsel. 13 sh.	0 15 0	0 15 0”

Argued for the pursuers—The items taxed off should be allowed. There were forty-seven pursuers and there were forty-seven different deliverances of the defenders; a question of difficulty arose as to whether all the pursuers might sue in one action or whether forty-seven different actions would be necessary. The conclusions of the action were difficult. Further, it was certainly competent to have brought forty-seven different actions, which would all have been carried to the closing of the record, so that the course taken by the pursuers had saved the defenders the cost of that alternative procedure. In such special and exceptional circumstances those expenses had been properly incurred and should be allowed— Dunlop's Trustees v. Alexander's Trustees, 1854, 16 D. 1104; Gibb v. Magistrates of Hamilton, 1833, 12 S. 218; Magistrates of Dundee v. Kerr, 1834, 12 S. 310; Black v. M'Lachlan, 1833, 11 S. 544; Lang v. Bruce, 1832, 11 S. 90.

Argued for the defenders—The Auditor was right. He had allowed fees for a memorial to two junior counsel to prepare the summons and also to the agent. There was no need for senior counsel until the adjustment of the record. There was no need for taking in a senior to determine the form the proceedings should take. The ordinary rule should be followed. Dunlop's case ( cit.) was not in point, for the fee there was in lieu of a memorial to counsel. The other cases had not been followed.