The Gazette 1955-58

1919, the surveyors' fees, legal costs and travelling expenses totalling £241 incurred by her, first in an abortive proposed purchase of a new home and, secondly, in the purchase of a new home:— HELD by the Court of Appeal (Denning, Romer and Sellers L.JJ.) (1) that the costs claimed were not part of the agreed purchase price. (2) That the householder was entitled to the costs claimed; for under the rules in section 2 and on the authorities any loss sustained by a dis possessed owner-occupier of a house which flowed from the compulsory acquisition could properly be the subject of compensation for disturbance, provided (a) that it was not too remote and (V) that it was the natural direct and reasonable con sequence of the dispossession. Nothing in rule (5) of section 2 (which deals with compensation for reinstatement) excluded from " compensation for disturbance " an item which included an element of reinstatement, for rule (5) was directed only to the assessment for compensation for land which had no general market value. The question whether any particular item of expenditure came within " compensation for disturbance" was in each case a question of fact for the tribunal. Per Denning L.J. The owner only recovers costs of this kind in a case where a house com pulsorily acquired was occupied by him and he is forced out of it and reasonably finds a house else where in which to live. Compensation for dis turbance of this nature would not be payable where the house was owned as a form of investment or where no new home was purchased. (Harvey v. Crawley Development Corporation— (1957) z W.L.R. 33*. Full junior and senior counsel's fees allowed in a motion to commit for contempt of sourt. The applicants moved to commit the respondents, who were the editor and a reporter of a newspaper and a third person, the plaintiff in an action in which the applicants were defendants, for contempt in writing, publishing or procuring to be published an article in the newspaper. On the hearing of the motion the respondents apologised, and no order was made except that the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of the motion as between solicitor and client. The applicants paid the fees of their leading counsel and junior counsel on the motion. The leading and junior counsel had been retained by the applicants in the action in which they were defendants, and in which the motion 81

attendances having begun before the sitting of the court and having concluded after 6 p.m. on each day of the hearing, the amounts allowed were the maximum under fee No. 172 in App. N. to the R.S.C. but objection was taken (by objection No. 5) that more should have been allowed in the circum stances. In relation to charges of refresher fees objection was taken (by objection No. 6) that the amounts allowed were computed on the basis of the five-hour rule under R.S.C. Ord 65 r. 27 (48) for a total hearing of twenty-five hours and thirty- seven minutes four fees being allowed and the fee for the hearing on the final day (which only occupied thirty-seven minutes) being reduced by apportion ment according to time. HELD by Roxburgh J :—(i) on taxation of costs as between solicitor and own client the costs allowed (apart from items expressly authorised by the client) should include, by virtue of R.S.C. Ord. 65. r. 27 (29) not only what was " necessary " but also what was " proper for the attainment of justice or for . . . defending the rights of any party " and in the circumstances the disallowances or reductions which were the subject of objections Nos. 1-4 were not maintainable since by excluding consideration of what might be proper as distinct from what might be necessary the registrar had made a wrong approach to the taxation, (ii) although the maximum fee prescribed by App. N. to the R.S.C. had been allowed for attendance at the hearing (objection No. 5) the work for which the charge was made was not limited to the time of the hearing in court and accordingly it was wrong to limit the sum allowed by the maximum amount of the prescribed fee without deciding whether more should not be allowed for the attendances beyond court hours, (iii) a rule of mathematical apportionment of a refresher fee according to the duration of the hearing (where the last part of the hearing lasted less than five hours) should not be applied. (Re: Mercury Model Aircraft Supplies Ltd. travelling expenses, as well as compensation for disturbance. A HOUSEHOLDER whose home had been compul sorily purchased by a new town development cor poration at an agreed price of £4,148, which included the legal costs of that purchase and ex penses incurred in moving her furniture and having curtains and carpets adjusted to fit a new house, claimed in addition as " compensation for dis turbance " under rule (6) of section 2 of the Acquisi tion of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, (1956) 2 An E.R. 885. Householder whose home is compulsorily purchased can claim costs for surveyor's fees and