!
!
Isnotucatu
I
tsa ar
fute
*
Ir.
;
tra
To se ov teq rae
Di, egcs
trees
7
cdd yo
*
feropol we
qg od# #melaja
eff
COP Y.:
Honourable Colonial Secretary,
C. O.
45637
5 NOV 03
515
Then I sent in my Minute 16.8:02. I was not aware that there had been a direction from bord Knutsford in 1990 that the Government should thenceforth not claim Counsel's fees in civil actions as part of the costs to be recovered where costs are awarded against the opposite party..
This direction will apply logical-
ly though it has not been extended specifically as well to crimi- nal cases e.g. appeals from Magistrates, as to civil cases e.§. actions by or against the Government.
Exemption from liability to pay fees allowed on taxation to the Counsel for the successful party is calculated to encourage appeals and actions against the Government when, as is not the case at present, the exemption becomes generally known; as it will in due course.
Already as you know there is a
growing disposition on the part of Marine Dot holders on the Praya to resort to litigation with Government in regard to their claims to exclusive use of the portion of reclamation on to which their. lots respectively front.
Lord Knutsford's direction has
been hitherto overlooked, and has not been acted upon.: On this paint the Crown Solicitor, in his Minute 29.8.02, says "Counsel's fees are included in my bill of costs ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ and paid by me into the Treasury."
1
If Lord Knutsford's direction
given in 1890 is to be adhered to and now acted upon the effect will probably be to encourage litigation against the Crown when it becomes known that no matter what the result may be the Crown cannot recover Counsel's fees in any case in which it appears by the Attorney-General.:
The Direction would not apply if
the Orown appeared by Counsel other than the Attorney-General. In such a case the Crown if successful would include "Counsel's fees" in its taxed bill of costs.
It is submitted that there is no good ground for this distinction; and that there is no reason why the unsuccessful party should be liable in the latter case and escape in the former.:
The Counsel's fees payable by the unsuccessful party are not "fees of office" Then Counsel's fees
are