Taylor v Marshalls Food Group

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an action for damages for personal injury brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. After proof was heard in February 1997, the court granted decree on 26 March 1997 for payment by the Defendant to the Plaintiff of a specified sum with interest, continuing the cause regarding expenses. The Plaintiff had lodged an offer to settle under a now revoked procedural rule. Subsequently, the Plaintiff enrolled for expenses and an additional award of expenses under the relevant procedural rule. Following hearings in May and June 1997, the court found the Defendant liable for the ordinary expenses and remitted the account to the Auditor of Court for taxation and reporting. The court reserved decision on the additional award of expenses and, after reporting the issue to the Inner House, the additional award was refused in June 1998. The Plaintiff then enrolled for an additional fee under a procedural rule, which the Defendant opposed, leading to the present hearing on its competency.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a motion for an additional fee under the relevant procedural rule can be entertained and granted after the account of expenses has been taxed and the Auditor has issued a report.
2. The procedural timing and competency of seeking an additional fee following the taxation of expenses.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff's counsel argued there was no procedural bar in the rules preventing a motion for an additional fee after the account had been taxed.
• It was submitted that the court could entertain and grant such a motion post-taxation and remit the matter back to the Auditor for assessment of the additional fee.
• Practice was cited where the Auditor continues a hearing to assess an additional fee and issues a single report including it.
• Although it would have been possible to seek the additional fee before taxation, no compelling procedural obstacle prevented a post-taxation motion.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Defendant contended that the procedural scheme treats the additional fee as part of the taxation process, which is completed once the Auditor reports.
• Once the Auditor's report is issued, the interlocutor decerning payment of taxed expenses takes effect and the matter is finally determined, save for objection procedures.
• Therefore, it is too late to seek an additional fee after the Auditor's report.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Marks and Spencer Ltd v British Gas Corporation 1985 SLT 17	Competency of motion for additional fee after interlocutor decerning payment of expenses	Confirmed that such a motion is competent after interlocutor but before taxation report
UCB Bank v Dundas & Wilson CS 1991 SLT 90	Discretion of Auditor to include additional fee as part of taxation process	Interpreted to mean additional fee must be included while remit to Auditor is outstanding; after report, matter is final

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the procedural rules governing expenses and additional fees, focusing on the timing of motions relative to the taxation process by the Auditor. It accepted that a motion for an additional fee is competent after an interlocutor decerning payment but before the Auditor's report. However, once the Auditor has issued the taxation report, the interlocutor takes full effect, and the expenses matter is finally determined subject only to specific objection procedures. The court found no hardship in requiring the Plaintiff to have brought the motion for the additional fee before taxation, noting no insuperable procedural obstacle existed to doing so. The court thus held that seeking an additional fee after the Auditor's report is incompetent.

Holding and Implications

The court refused as incompetent the Plaintiff's motion for an additional fee made after the taxation of expenses and the Auditor's report.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff cannot obtain an additional fee award post-taxation in these circumstances. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the procedural timing for motions for additional fees in relation to the Auditor's taxation process.