Glasgow Caledonian University v Liu

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by note of objections to a report by the Auditor of the Court of Session on the taxation of the account of expenses incurred by the Pursuers and Respondents in an appeal to the Court of Session. The appeal arose from an interlocutor of the Sheriff Principal dated 18 September 2014, which dismissed the Defender and Appellant’s appeal. The Defender was found liable for expenses by interlocutor dated 2 June 2015. The diet of taxation took place on 25 January 2016, and the Auditor taxed the account of expenses at £11,296.03. The Defender/Appellant proposed that a further £5,640.01 be deducted from the account. The application challenges the Auditor’s report and seeks review of the objections raised by the Appellant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the note of objections to the Auditor’s report is competent and properly framed.
2. The extent of the Auditor’s duty to provide reasons for his decisions on taxation.
3. Whether the Auditor exercised his discretion unreasonably or misdirected himself in law.
4. Whether the charges for counsel’s fees and solicitor’s fees were excessive or unreasonable.
5. Whether the court can interfere with the Auditor’s decisions on taxation and under what circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Auditor has a duty to provide adequate reasons for his decisions on taxation.
• The note of objections may be incompetent because some objections differ from or were not raised at the diet of taxation.
• The Auditor exercised his discretion unreasonably in allowing certain fees, including counsel’s fees and solicitor’s fees, which the Appellant considers excessive or unnecessary.
• The Auditor misdirected himself in law, particularly regarding the allowance of attendance fees where a law accountant was instructed rather than a solicitor.
• The Appellant contended that the Auditor failed to consider all relevant objections and that the Auditor’s decisions should be reviewed on a standard akin to judicial review.

Respondent's Arguments

• The objections raised in the note are largely incompetent where they differ from those made at the diet of taxation.
• The Auditor provided sufficient reasons in the minute lodged in accordance with the Rules of Court.
• The Auditor’s discretion should not be interfered with unless there is a clear error such as misdirection in law or irrationality.
• The court should not engage in detailed review of minor points or matters with minimal financial consequence.
• The Auditor’s practice of allowing fees for attendance by a law accountant equivalent to those allowed for a solicitor is lawful and appropriate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework governing taxation of expenses and the Auditor’s role as an expert decision-maker with broad discretion. It emphasized that the court’s jurisdiction to review the Auditor’s report is limited and akin to judicial review, allowing interference only where the Auditor misdirected himself in law, took irrelevant or failed to consider relevant factors, or made an unreasonable decision no reasonable decision-maker could make.

The court examined the competence of the objections raised in the note, comparing them to the points of objection lodged before the Auditor. It found that many objections were not raised at the diet of taxation and thus were incompetent for review by the court. It rejected the contention that the Auditor had an absolute duty to consider every item absent objection, stating that the court’s function is one of review, not de novo consideration.

Regarding the adequacy of the Auditor’s reasons, the court acknowledged that while the explanations were brief, they were sufficient in context given the nature of the taxation process and the Auditor’s expertise. The court referred to established authority indicating that detailed reasoning is not generally required.

The court considered the substantive objections to fees and expenses, including the attendance fee and counsel’s charges, and found no error of law or unreasonableness in the Auditor’s decisions. The court declined to engage in fine detail over minor points with minimal financial consequences, emphasizing proportionality in exercising its jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the objections were essentially invitations to substitute its own view for that of the Auditor, which is not permissible absent a clear error.

Holding and Implications

The court REPELLED the objections contained in the note of objections.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the Auditor’s taxation of the account of expenses as reasonable and proper. No part of the Auditor’s report was found to be legally defective or unreasonable to a degree warranting interference. The decision does not set new precedent but reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review of taxation decisions and the deference owed to the Auditor’s expertise and discretion. Minor or technical objections not raised before the Auditor cannot be entertained by the court on review.