Mr. Singer s Costs as Counsel Upheld

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 645, 23 April 1929, Page 11

Mr. Singer s Costs as Counsel Upheld

SUMMONS DISMISSED ' defence of a. h. martin in connection •u.’iui an application made on behalf oL Alexander Henry Martin, law clerk, of Auckland, for an referring to the registrar of taxation a bill of costs rendered by .Richard Arnold Singer, solicitor of Auckland, Mr- Justice Kennedy delivered reserved judgment at the Supreme Court this morning. The summons way dismissed with coats £ ~ 7s and disbursements to be oaid to Mr. Singer. P The facts were that Mr. Martin had engaged Mr. Singer to defend him on a criminal charge, oh which he was remanded twice before being committed to die Supreme Court for trial, said his Honour. Mr. Singer said he had reason to believe'that fees due by Mr. Martin to Ollier solicitors for work done in previous litigation had hot been paid, and named Iris tee at three hundred guineas, insisting upon two-thirds of the fee being paid before he acted on Air. Alartin's behalf. Two hundred pounds were □aid by Air. Alartin, but immediately prior to the trial in the Supreme Court, Mr Martin notified Air. Singer that he had decided to employ other counsel, and required his bill. Eventually Mr. singer, who denied Mr. Martin's right to an account, supplied a note of his fee in which Air. Martin was debited with £315. being “my counsel’s fee as arranged herein. ' and credit was allowed for £2OO paid Ms. Singer as a barrister and solicitor. It was submitted on behalf of Mr. Singer that the fee paid or payable by Mr Alartin was not taxable by the registrar under the provisions of The Law Practitioner’s Act, 190 S. “I am of opinion that his objection is sound,” said his Honour. The fee charged was not for services to be rendered by Mr. Singer as solicitor, though it was true that a solicitor may appear as an advocate in the Police Court, but rather for services to be rendered by “counsel” which must, in the circumstances of this case, have meant services by Mr. Singer as barrister and not as a solicitor. The fee was named as “counsel's fee” and the difference between counsel’s fee and ordinary solicitor’s charges was explained to Mr. Martin when the fee was named. The question accordingly arises whether the fee charged by a barrister, who is not also acting as solicitor for the clieni for his services as barrister, may be referred to the registrar for taxation under the Law Practitioners Act, 190 S. “I do not apprehend that the door is opened by my decision, as suggested hy counsel for the applicant, to evasion by solicitors of the provisions of section 26 of the Law Practitioners Act, 1905,” said his Honour. “That section operates for the relief of solicitors rather than for the benefit of their clients, and the court will look as well to the substance as to the form of a transaction. The summons will be dismissed with cost £7 7s, and disbursements will be paid to Richard Arnold Singer.”