Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Hyundai Timber Co Ltd v Qatu [1990] SBHC 123; [1990] SILR 1 (22 February 1990)

[1990] SILR 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 52 of 1989

HYUNDAI TIMBER COMPANY LIMITED

v

QATU and OTHERS

High Court of Solomon Islands
Stanford-Smith, Registrar
Civil Case No. 52 of 1989

Hearing: 1 February 1990
Ruling: 22 February 1990

Costs - taxation - bill of costs - Appendix J, High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1964.

Facts:

The Fifth Defendant applied for taxation of costs. The Plaintiff raised the point that the costs set out in Part A on pages 2 and 3 of the bill of costs were not allowable as they were not within items 1 to 42 of Appendix J to the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.

Held:

Items 1-42 were not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive as a scale but simply provided for formal elements in a typical case and accordingly, the bill of costs was in order.

Cases referred to:

None

Legislation referred to:

High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1964, 0.6 r.1, 0.65 r.13, Items 1-42, 43, 44, Appendix J

J. Corrin for the Fifth Defendant
F Waleilia for the Plaintiff

STANFORTH-SMITH: This is an application by the 5th defendant for taxation of his costs. Counsel for the Plaintiff has raised a preliminary point that those costs set out in PART A on pages 2 and 3 are not allowable as only items 1 - 42 are allowable, and that there is a duplication.

By virtue 065(1) cost are in the discretion of the Court, and by virtue of 065 r(13) practitioners are allowed to claim between the lower and higher scales in Appendix J for the various matters set out therein.

Items 1 - 42 in Appendix J set out a specific cost scale for particular formal steps in proceedings. Item 43 gives a Court power to increase these rates either at trial or on a motion, notice of which, must be made within 14 days of the pronouncement of judgment.

Item 44 SPECIFICALLY states that charges for business not contained within the scale, that is, items such as instructions, letters, phone calls, attendances etc shall be calculated on the basis of the scale of costs in the Supreme Court subsisting at 1.1.70 but without the addition of any percentage increase.

It is clear that the draftsman of the rules did not intent items 1 - 42 to be exhausted or comprehensive as a scale. It is simply a scale for formal elements in a typical case.

The principle of party-party taxation, now known as ‘standard basis’, is that all those costs are chargeable that are necessary to enable the adverse party to conduct the litigation and no more.

The matters the taxing officer must bear in mind when dealing with discretionary matters are:

a) the complexity of the item or cause, or matters in which it arises

b) the staff, specified knowledge and responsibility required of and the time expected by the solicitor and counsel

c) the number of documents prepared

d) place and circumstances

e) the importance of the cause or matter to the client

f) where money is involved its amount or value

The bill of costs as shown by the 5th Defendant follows the precedent of the High Court of England. That is:

1) items specifically charged at scale rates; and

2) Part A, being work done.

The charging rates at $5 for letters out and phone calls, peruse letters at 1.00, and time charged at $100 per hour for a sole practitioner and therefore in effect senior partner is not excessive. In PNG currently the rate is K100 per hour. This is not to say PNG rates should apply in the Solomons but it does give an indication that rate is by no means excessive. However when put against say item 27 $45-90 for a first day on an Originating Summons, it may do so but these rates have not been revised and in 1989 a factor of 5 was computed to merely bring them up to 1989 dollar value i.e. $450. I take that into account. The fifth defendant has not included any percentage increase for care and conduct.

I therefore do not support the submission and allow the bill as drawn. I find that the items are sufficiently distinguished from Appendix J specific items. Item 34 was attendance upon an appeal from Registrar and is a proper item and is not an item under 29(a). I assure there is a typographical error and reference to the ninth defendant should read fifth defendant.

I allow the bill as drawn.