The Gazette 1908-9

DEC., 1908]

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

make a rule constituting a new taxing authority, what is the construction of Rule 55 ? The Solicitor-General reads it as meaning that the Board are only to receive the bill of costs, and allot it for taxation to anyone they deem competent. Mr. Ronan interprets the rule as meaning that the Board was the taxing- authority—they were to certify the costs, getting help if required. Comparing the rule with the new substituted rule, and looking at the terms of the memorandum on which Mr. Mecredy acted, the wording of the order of the Board of April I3th, and the corre spondence, I think that the Board considered, probably rightly, that the rule meant what Mr. Ronan says. If so, it would seem to me ultra vires. I doubt also whether interpreted in the Solicitor-General's sense—that is, as enabling the Board to appoint any person to tax ad hoc— it was such a rule as section 31 contemplates. If the rule authorizes the appointment of a special individual to tax in each case, might not such appointment be within section 102 of the Local Government Act of 1898 ? 3. Mr. Mecredy acted under the Board memorandum, which'directed him as to what he was to do. There is no certificate of taxa tion ; but there is no doubt that, though the applicant from the frame of the order and cor respondence thought otherwise, the deductions from the Bill were made all by Mr. Mecredy and not by the Board. The items disallowed or reduced were only disclosed to vendor's solicitors as p. favour. If Mr. Mecredy was an independent taxing authority, the Board mis took their position : they had no right to inter fere with him or give directions—a course the more objectionable as the firm were their solicitors. Their action indicates that they did not regard Mr. Mecredy as an independent responsible officer, but treated him as their solicitor to whom they could give directions and resort for assistance. There is some un certainty as to who was to tax, as the firm con sists of two partners. I assume the senior partner was intended. The direction to apply the new scale was wrong, as no such scale was then legally in force. On the whole, I think the taxation under these circumstances cannot be supported. 4. The bill was taxed by Mr. Mecredy with out giving the vendor's solicitors an opportunity of being heard in support of items or amounts. Some of the disallowances seem arbitrary; others are on the ground of want of vouching, e.g., the small postage and parcel item. As

already observed, title costs often raise trouble some questions ; and I am of opinion that no title costs, as here, can be adjudicated on without giving the person affected a hearing, if he desires it. A taxation under the existing procedure requires notice to the parties, and the fact-that the new taxing authority is not subject to any supervision or appeal in the discharge of duties which often involve points of difficulty, makes it indispensable that re cognized principles and practice of ordinary justice should be observed. The taxation was conducted as a domestic administrative matter entrusted to the uncontrolled discretion of the Board advised by their solicitor ; notice was treated as unnecessary, and inquiry as to dis allowances was regarded as somewhat unreason able curiosity. This ground of objection also seems to invalidate the taxation. 5. The last point to be considered-is whether Goff's Case, 1905, I. R., 121, applies. That case decided that a taxing- officer acting as persona designata is free from certiorari, because his duty is ministerial, and does not impose final liability. What is challenged here is not a taxation certificate, but the order of the Local Government Board which purports to fix the sum payable as the result of taxation. In my opinion, if the objections I have discussed are well founded, the order was such as to be subject to certiorari. Section 31 refers to rules as to payment as well as taxation, and the order is an order relating to payment. As I think the order must be quashed on the above grounds of substance, I need not consider whether its ambiguous and uncertain character in point of form might not also lay it open to impeach ment. MADDEN, J. :— The order before us has been made by the Local Government Board under the powers vested in them by the 3ist section of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, by which the Board is given power to "provide for the taxa tion and payment of any costs to be received, allowed, or paid in relation to the confirmation by the Local Government Board, and the carry ing into execution of improvement schemes." The order not only fixes the amount of costs, but provides for payment. It is thus clearly distinguishable from the certificate of taxation which came before this Court in R. (War Secretary} v. Go/(igo$, 2 Ir.R. 121). The Court held that cerliorari did not lie, because the function of the Taxing Master as persona de signata was ministerial, and his certificate,