Practice and Procedure

Interpleader.

This in English law is the form of action by which a person who is sued at law by two or more parties claim ing adversely to each other for the recovery of money or goods wherein he has no interest, obtains relief by procuring the rival claimants to try their rights between or among themselves only. Originally the only relief available to the possessor against such adverse claims was by means of a bill of interpleader in equity. The Interpleader Act 1831 enabled the defendant in such cases, on application to the court, to have the original action stayed and converted into a trial between the two claimants. The Common Law Procedure Act of 186o further extended the power of the common law courts in interpleader; and the Judicature Act 1875 (repealed and re-enacted by the Judicature Act 1925) provides that the practice and procedure under these two statutes should apply to all divisions of the High Court of Justice. The Judica ture Act also extended the remedy of interpleader to a debtor or other person liable in respect of a debt alleged to be assigned, when the assignment was disputed. In 1883 the Acts of 1831 and 186o were embodied in the form of rules by the Rules of the Supreme Courts (1883), O. 47, by reference to which all questions of interpleader in the High Court of Justice are now determined. Interpleader is the equivalent of multiplepoinding in Scots law.

Costs.

When giving judgment in England, the judge usually deals with the costs of the action. The term "costs" denotes the expenses incurred (I) in employing a lawyer in his professional capacity for purposes other than litigation; (2) in instituting and carrying on litigation whether with or without the aid of a lawyer.

The retainer of a solicitor implies a contract to pay to him his proper charges and disbursements with respect to the work done by him as a solicitor. In cases of conveyancing his remuneration is now for the most part regulated by scales ad valorem on the value of the property dealt with (Solicitors' Remuneration Order 1882), and clients are free to make written agreements for the conduct of any class of non-litigious business, fixing the costs by a percentage on the value of the amount involved. So far as liti gious business is concerned, the arrangement known as "no cure no pay" is objected to by the courts and the profession as leading to speculative actions, and stipulations as to a share of the pro ceeds of a successful action are champertous and illegal. An English solicitor's bill drawn in the old form is a voluminous itemized narrative of every act done by him in the cause or matter with a charge set against each entry and often against each letter written. Before the solicitor can recover from his client the amount of his charges, he must deliver a signed bill of costs and wait a month before suing.

The High Court has a threefold jurisdiction to deal with solicitors' costs :—(I) by virtue of its jurisdiction over them as its officers; (2) statutory, under the Solicitors Act 1843 and other legislation; (3) ordinary, to ascertain the reasonableness of charges made the subject of a claim.

The client can, as a matter of course, get an order for taxation within a month of the delivery of the solicitor's bill, and either client or solicitor can get such an order as of course within 12 months of delivery. After expiry of that time the court may order taxation if the special circumstances call for it, and even so late as up to 12 months after actual payment.

Costs as between solicitor and client are taxed in the same office as litigious costs, and objections to the decisions of the tax ing officer, if properly made, can be taken for review to a judge of the High Court and to the court of appeal.

The expenses of litigation fall in the first instance on the person who undertakes the proceedings or retains and employs the law yer. It is in accordance with the ordinary ideas of justice that the expenses of the successful party to litigation should be de frayed by the unsuccessful party, a notion expressed in the phrase that "costs follow the event." But there are many special circum stances which interfere to modify the application of this rule. The action, though successful, may be in its nature frivolous or vexatious, or it may have been brought in a higher court where a lower court would have been competent to deal with it. On the other hand the defendant, although he has escaped a judg ment against him, may by his conduct have rendered the action necessary or otherwise justifiable. In such cases the rule that costs should follow the event would be felt to work an injustice, and exceptions to its operation have therefore been devised. In the law of England the provisions as to litigious costs, though now simpler than of old, are still elaborate and complicated, and the costs themselves are on a higher scale than is known in most other countries.

Except as regards appeals to the House of Lords and suits in equity, the right to recover costs from the opposite party in litigation has always depended on statute law or on rules made under statutory authority. "Costs are the creature of statute." The House of Lords has declared its competence to grant costs on appeals independently of statute.

In the judicial committee of the privy council the power to award, in its discretion, costs on appeals from the colonies or other matters referred to it, is given by s. 15 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833; and the costs are taxed by the registrar of the council.