28 Nov 2022
The summonses were dismissed because the 1st respondent failed to request the taxing master's reasons within the 14‑day period required by Order 62 r34(4), and therefore was not entitled to apply for a review under Order 62 r35; on the merits no demonstrable error of law or principle was shown in any event.
28 Nov 2022
The application for review was dismissed because the 1st respondent failed to request the taxing master's reasons within the 14‑day period under Order 62 r34(4)/r35(1), a prerequisite to seek a judge's review; accordingly the court could not determine the review and, on the merits, no error of law or principle was demonstrated by the respondent.
6 Feb 2009
Order 62 establishes a mandatory two-stage review mechanism for challenging a taxing master's decision (rules 33-35); a party cannot bypass that mechanism by appealing under Order 58, and the court cannot cure that procedural failure under Order 2 because doing so would deprive the taxing master of the opportunity to reconsider and to provide full reasons; accordingly the appeal was misconceived and dismissed.
14 Dec 1968
The Taxing Master applied the 'necessary or proper' test in Order 62 rule 28(2), rejecting the appellants' argument that Note 2(5) mandated full allowance; he allowed briefing of an English tax specialist in principle but limited recoverable fees to what a hypothetical average specialist would reasonably charge for a three‑day Full Court hearing, reduced Litton's and Monroe's claimed fees to assessed figures, disallowed luxury items (clerk's travel and accommodation) and the leader's tax liability, and ordered each party to bear the costs of the review.