Caledonian Railway Co. v. Corporation of Greenock. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co. v. Corporation of Greenock [1922] ScotLR 372 (25 February 1922)

Caledonian Railway Co. v. Corporation of Greenock. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co. v. Corporation of Greenock [1922] ScotLR 372 (25 February 1922)

Discrimination in fee scales between pursuers was unjustified; both should be allowed fees on the same scale. Fees for junior counsel in the Inner House should be divided equally between the two pursuers, reflecting representation of separate interests but joint instruction. Consultation fees for expert witnesses...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 372
Parties
Pursuer: Caledonian Railway Company; Pursuer: Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company; Defender: Corporation of Greenock
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 February 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Appeal, Objections to Auditor's Taxation of Expenses
Outcome
Objections by defenders largely refused; objections by Glasgow and South-Western Railway sustained in part; objections by both railway companies to expert witness fees refused except for consultation fees; accounts remitted to Auditor for adjustment.
Legal Topics
Taxation of Expenses, Counsel Fees, Expert Witness Fees, Party and Party Expenses
Civil Procedure Costs and Expenses Taxation of Expenses Counsel Fees Expert Witness Fees Party and Party Expenses

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caledonian Railway Company

Pursuer

Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company

Pursuer

Corporation of Greenock

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Appeal, Objections to Auditor's Taxation of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrimination in counsel fee scales between pursuers was justified
  2. 2 Whether fees allowed to counsel and expert witnesses were fair and reasonable under the Table of Fees
  3. 3 Whether watching fees should be applied

Ratio Decidendi

Discrimination in fee scales between pursuers was unjustified; both should be allowed fees on the same scale. Fees for junior counsel in the Inner House should be divided equally between the two pursuers, reflecting representation of separate interests but joint instruction. Consultation fees for expert witnesses with counsel are allowable in this exceptional case. The Auditor's discretion is respected but must align with current professional practice.

Court Disposition

Objections by defenders largely refused; objections by Glasgow and South-Western Railway sustained in part; objections by both railway companies to expert witness fees refused except for consultation fees; accounts remitted to Auditor for adjustment.

Orders

  • Apply same scale of fees to counsel for both pursuers in Outer and Inner House.
  • Allow only one fee for junior counsel in Inner House, divided equally between pursuers.