THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL v. JOHN STEVENS [2011] ScotSC 182 (18 November 2011)

THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL v. JOHN STEVENS [2011] ScotSC 182 (18 November 2011)

The auditor erred by failing to assess what a reasonable solicitor would have done and charging two thirds of that sum, instead simply applying two thirds of a solicitor's hourly rate to all hours claimed. The fee paid to Mr L, an English barrister acting as a lay representative, was not a recoverable outlay as it was not reasonably incurred for the proper conduct of the cause and circumvented the intended scope of lay representation rules. The respondent's account must be taxed in accordance with the correct interpretation of the 1976 Order, and Mr L's fee is disallowed.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 182
Parties
Petitioner: The City of Edinburgh Council; Respondent: John Stevens (correctly known as John Stephen)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Note of Objections in Sequestration (bankruptcy) Proceedings / Post Dismissal of Petition, Taxation of Expenses
Outcome
Note of Objections sustained in favour of petitioners.
Legal Topics
Party Litigant Expenses, Lay Representation, Taxation of Costs, Legal Outlays, Solicitors (scotland) Act 1980
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Costs and Expenses Party Litigant Expenses Lay Representation Taxation of Costs Legal Outlays Solicitors (scotland) Act 1980

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The City of Edinburgh Council

Petitioner

John Stevens (correctly known as John Stephen)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Note of Objections in Sequestration (bankruptcy) Proceedings / Post Dismissal of Petition, Taxation of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct method for taxing a party litigant's expenses under the Act of Sederunt (Expenses of Party Litigants) 1976?
  2. 2 Is a fee charged by a lay representative who is an English barrister a recoverable outlay under the 1976 Order?
  3. 3 Does the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 render such a fee irrecoverable due to illegality?

Ratio Decidendi

The auditor erred by failing to assess what a reasonable solicitor would have done and charging two thirds of that sum, instead simply applying two thirds of a solicitor's hourly rate to all hours claimed. The fee paid to Mr L, an English barrister acting as a lay representative, was not a recoverable outlay as it was not reasonably incurred for the proper conduct of the cause and circumvented the intended scope of lay representation rules. The respondent's account must be taxed in accordance with the correct interpretation of the 1976 Order, and Mr L's fee is disallowed.

Court Disposition

Note of Objections sustained in favour of petitioners.

Orders

  • Remit to auditor to tax the respondent's account of expenses in accordance with the judgment.
  • Respondent found liable to petitioners in expenses of the Note of Objections.