The Gazette 1955-58

allowance or disallowance " in any bill of costs . . . of the whole or any part of any items " : if he does that, then, as I understand, it is his duty to listen to the objections. The parties may then apply to the taxing officer " to review the taxation in respect of the same." Then there is a provision that, pending the con sideration of the objections, the taxing master may issue a certificate on other items, but that does not affect the present case. Then comes R.S.C., Ord. 65, r. 27 (40), which reads : " Upon such application the taxing officer shall reconsider and review his taxation upon such objections ..." Let it be noted that it is " his taxation ", and the taxing officer agrees that he has not proceeded to taxation in this case. Rule 27 (40) continues : "... and he may, if he shall think fit, receive further evidence in respect thereof, and, if so required by either party, he shall state either in his certificate of taxation or allocator, or by reference to such objection, the grounds and reasons of his decision thereon, and any special facts or circumstances relating thereto ..." That makes it quite plain that it is the taxing officer, and not the judge, who has to reach a decision. R.S.C., Ord. 65, r. 27 (41), reads : " Any party who may be dissatisfied with the certificate or allocatur of the taxing officer, as to any item or part of an item which may have been objected to as aforesaid, may . . . apply to a judge at chambers for an order to review the taxation as to the same item or part of an item ..." Again, that seems to me to make it quite plain that the duty of the taxing master is to make up his mind, stating his conclusions in the certificate and giving his reasons, as provided for in R.S.C., Ord. 65, r. 27 (40), and then the judge has a limited jurisdiction to upset his decision. I would point out that it is a limited jurisdiction, not a complete jurisidc

about eighteen pages, and, with the exception of the disbursements, no separate charge is assigned to any item in those pages. It is very difficult to follow the description of the items in Part 2 of the bill. The total sum of disbursements which appear in Part 2 amount to £9 195., but the unitemised charge is £94 i os. Then comes Part 3, which is an itemised bill amounting; in all to about £14. Thus the major part of the bill as a whole is the lump sum bill." It is plain from the words " whereas I should have proceeded to tax " that the taxing master has not proceeded to tax the bills of costs. I object to that form of certificate for many reasons. It is not, I understand, the practice for directions of this sort to be put in writing, and I understind that in this case the direction was not put in writing, but the recital of the direction in the master's certifi cate seems to leave out something which may or may not be important, but which certainly occurs in his own record of the occasion. It cannot be a con venient practice that somebody should be entitled to challenge a direction, and that the judge should hen have to send for the taxing master to find out what the direction was which was being challenged. It is to be noted that the taxing master has not set out the whole of his direction in the certificate, and I do not suggest that he purported to do so. Therefore, I am in the position of hearing an appeal concerning a direction and having no certain know ledge what it was. That is my first objection to this procedure. The second is this. I do not know why the taxing master should be allowed to form an opinion on the point whether, if he taxes the bill, the questions which will arise on that taxation will be questions of principle. That is why I referred to the question how far these matters are contentious. It may well be that no question of principle arises. It depends entirely on what these various items relate to, and it is essentially his business to make up his own mind on these matte's. Then, if he likes to say what his mind is, this court, under the Rules of the Supreme Court to which I will refer in a moment, can investigate the question whether he has rightly appreciated the principles involved. I think that it is his duty to give his decision on the point in the certificate, and that it is his decision stated in the certificate which would be the proper matter to come before the court. Thirdly, I think that the whole of this particular process is at variance with the relevant rule, which is R.S.C., Ord. (>•), r. 27. That presupposes that the taxing officer has gone through the bill and indicated, before drawing up any certificate, that he is going to allow or disallow particular items, in whole or in part—it must be an