BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Crawford v. Adams. Crawford v. Dunlop [1900] ScotLR 38_216 (21 December 1900) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1900/38SLR0216.html Cite as: [1900] SLR 38_216, [1900] ScotLR 38_216 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 216↓
( Ante, June 12, 1900, vol. 37, p. 767, and 2 F. 987.)
A pursuer, founding upon slanders contained in certain letters written by a law-agent on the instructions of his client, sued both the client and the law—agent in separate actions for damages. Each defender lodged defences, and separate issues were allowed, but the actions were sent for jury trial together, and the defenders were represented by the same counsel and agents at the trial. The verdict in one action was for the pursuer, in the other for the defender, and the successful party in each case was found entitled to expenses.
Held (1) that in the action in which the pursuer was successful he was entitled to his whole expenses; and (2) that in the action in which the defender was successful, the defender was entitled to his whole expenses down to the date of the trial, but only to one—half of his expenses after that date.
These cases are reported Ante, ut supra.
The Court having allowed issues against both defenders, the actions were remitted for jury trial together. Both the defenders were represented at the trial by the same counsel and agents. In the action against Adams the pursuer obtained a verdict with £50 of damages. In the action against Dunlop the jury found for the defender. The Court applied the verdicts, and found the successful party in each case entitled to expenses.
Page: 217↓
The present question arose upon objections to the Auditor's reports on the accounts of expenses.
The nature of the objections and the arguments of the parties sufficiently appear from the opinion of Lord Trayner infra.
In taxing the account of the pursuer's expenses in the case against Adams the Auditor has allowed the whole expenses; but in taxing the account for Dunlop he has allowed the full expenses down to the trial, but only half of the expenses after that date. The defenders object to this mode of dealing with the accounts, and maintain either that only one-half of the expense of the trial should be allowed to the pursuer, or that the whole expense of the trial should be allowed to Dunlop. I think the Auditor is right in what he has done, and that the objection to his report should be repelled. It is the fact, not disputed, that the expense allowed to the pursuer by the Auditor is just what it would have been had there been only one defender. That expense is what Adams has been found liable for, and for that expense accordingly the pursuer is now entitled to decree. On the other hand, Dunlop, being associated in his defence with Adams, had to pay, and only did pay, one-half of the amount of counsel's fees and other expenses of the trial. If he gets that half of these expenses, he gets all he expended, and all that the pursuer occasioned by his action in which he was unsuccessful. If the whole of Dunlop's account as stated by him was allowed, that would be giving him more by one-half than the expense he has incurred, or if he shared the surplus with Adams, that would be in effect giving decree in favour of Adams for one-half of the expense of the trial, to which he is not and has not been found entitled. The Auditor has given the pursuer the whole expense to which he was put by having to proceed against Adams—nothing more. He has given Dunlop the whole expense to which he was put, and which he disbursed, in the action in which he was successful—nothing less. The result in my opinion is that the Auditor has carried out exactly what we determined in the matter of expenses, and that the principle on which he has proceeded is right.
The
The Court repelled the objections to the Auditor's report.
Counsel for the Pursuer— Ure, Q.C.—Hunter. Agent— Henry Robertson, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defenders— Salvesen, Q.C.—Guy. Agent— John Veitch, Solicitor.
