Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord President—The verdict in this case was for £35. Under the Codifying Act of Sederunt (F, iii, 3) I am asked—as the Judge who presided at the trial—to certify the case as one in which the successful pursuer is entitled to charge more than one-half of the taxed amount of her expenses. The action was for damages in respect of a road collision, the damages being stated at £120. Having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial I think the case was of a relatively trumpery character for submission to a jury especially in the Court of Session. It raised no question of general interest or importance. I thought the jury's award both just and discriminating, and if it had been as high as £50 I should have thought it over-generous, In these circumstances the case seems to me a typical one for the application of the maximum prescribed by the Act of Sederunt. The Act establishes what may be called a rule of general application, and if a certificate is to be granted, it must be because there is something to take the case out of the ordinary rule. I do not think there is anything of the kind here and therefore I think no certificate ought to be granted.

Counsel for the pursuer thereupon moved the Court to apply the verdict and award half of the expenses as taxed.

Counsel for the defenders objected, and moved that the Court modify the pursuer's expenses to such an amount as would have been recoverable if the action had been raised in the Sheriff Court.

Argued for the defenders—Half expenses being the maximum in a case like the present, it was in the discretion of the Court to grant expenses on a lower scale, or even in certain circumstances none at all. Half expenses would here exceed the amount awarded to the pursuer. Counsel referred to Jamieson v. Hartil ( 1898, 25 R. 551, 35 S.L.R. 450, per Lords Trayner and Moncreiff), and to the Codifying Act of Sederunt (F, iii, 3).

Lord President—The unsuccessful defenders' motion to the Court is that we should modify the pursuer's expenses to such an amount as would have been recoverable if the action had been raised and concluded in the Sheriff Court. I do not doubt that the provision in the Act of Sederunt, which limits the amount of expenses for which motion can be made by the successful party in cases to which the Act applies, derogates nothing from the power of the Court to modify expenses further, or even in circumstances where the justice of the case demands it to refuse expenses altogether. The particular form of modification proposed is, no doubt, one which it would be within the competency of this Court to adopt, but it is, so far as I am aware, without sanction in practice. Apart, however, from any question with regard to form, I do not see anything in the circumstances of the case to take it out of the category to which the provisions of the Act of Sederunt normally apply, and in which the application of the Act of Sederunt is sufficient to do justice. Although the case was a small one and the pursuer recovered only £35 of her claim for £120, she was entitled to come to this Court and have her case tried by jury here.

Lord Skerrington and Lord Cullen concurred.