Å
360
must surely be obvious that neither such salary nor any portion thereof can be recovered by Government from an unsuccessful litigant in a suit in which the Government is a party. The salary then, not being paid by Crown Solicitor, nor by the Government in respect of any particular cause, can in no sense be brought within the category of "Counsel's fees" paid in the cause in which the Crown Solicitor's Bill of Costs is presented for taxation.
The salary of the Attorney-General of Hongkong may by the terms of his appointment be regarded as "a general retainer" of him as inter alia, Counsel for the Crown in all cases coming before the Courts of Law; but even regarded as such no part of that salary can be recovered from a party against whom costs have been awarded; for a "general retainer" is not recoverable on taxation as between party and party.
If therefore the Attorney-General is not allowed the ordinary Counsel's fees when he appears in Court on behalf of
the Crown I am of opinion that Lord Knutsford's ruling referred
to in these papers must be adhered to, and that "Counsel's fees"
can only be included in the Crown Solecitor's Bill of Costs
against the opposite party when the Crown is represented by some
Barrister other than the Attorney-General a conclusion which,
with great respect, would seem to be a reductio ad absurdum.
I respectfully submit that the ruling that the Attor-
ney-General cannot be allowed to receive Counsel's fees when he
appears on behalf of the Crown before the Courts of Law should be.
re-considered for the following reasons:-
The ruling I understand is based upon the ground that
when the Attorney-General of Hongkong accepted office he did so on "the assumption that fees received by him in the capacity of Attorney-General' should be paid into the Treasury" (see Sir
F.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.