Goodwins, Jardine, and Co., Ltd, v. Charles Brand & Son [1907] ScotLR 788 (30 May 1907)

The Auditor should have considered both the largeness of the amount at stake and the complexity of the cause, justifying higher fees for counsel than the ordinary scale.

Citation: [1907] ScotLR 788
Parties: Pursuer: Goodwins, Jardine, and Company, Limited; Defender: Charles Brand & Son
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 30 May 1907
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal on Taxation of Expenses
Outcome: objections sustained in part; decree for increased fees
Legal Topics: Expenses, Taxation of Costs, Fees to Counsel

Civil Procedure Expenses Taxation of Costs Fees to Counsel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Goodwins, Jardine, and Company, Limited

Pursuer

Charles Brand & Son

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal on Taxation of Expenses

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Auditor erred in not considering the amount at stake and complexity when taxing counsel's fees
2 What is the proper scale of fees for counsel in cases of substantial value and complexity

Ratio Decidendi

The Auditor should have considered both the largeness of the amount at stake and the complexity of the cause, justifying higher fees for counsel than the ordinary scale.

Court Disposition

objections sustained in part; decree for increased fees

Orders

Fees for senior counsel allowed at twenty-five guineas for first day and twenty guineas for subsequent days of proof; junior counsel fees increased proportionally; fees for Inner House hearing remain as taxed; decree for £41, 6s. 2d. in favour of pursuers after modification.