word
sp
I
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANT
sp
DOCTOR
DAVID
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
AGAINST
A
DECISION
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
TAXING
MASTER
sp
TAXING
MASTER
OF
RIGHT
sp
ER
sp
GIVEN
sp
ON
THE
sp
THIRTEENTH
OF
AUGUST
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
THREE
sp
WHEREBY
THE
TAXING
MASTER
sp
DISALLOWED
sp
INTEREST
sp
ON
sp
PLAINTIFF'S
sp
BILL
OF
THE
sp
COST
IN
THE
sp
ACTION
sp
FOR
A
PERIOD
sp
FROM
THE
sp
FIRST
OF
NOVEMBER
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
ONE
TO
THE
sp
TWENTY
SEVENTH
sp
OF
sp
MAY
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
THREE
sp
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
IN
HIS
sp
NOTICE
OF
sp
APPEAL
sp
CLAIMS
sp
THAT
THE
TAXING
MASTER
SHOULD
HAVE
sp
DISALLOWED
INTEREST
sp
FOR
A
LONGER
PERIOD
sp
IN
ADDITION
TO
THE
sp
PERIOD
sp
HE
ACTUALLY
sp
AL
sp
DISALLOWED
sp
INT
sp
NAMELY
sp
THERE
SHOULD
BE
ADDITIONAL
sp
DISALLOWANCE
FOR
THE
sp
PERIOD
FROM
sp
THE
TWENTY
sp
FORTH
OF
APRIL
NINETEEN
NINETY
ONE
sp
TO
THE
sp
THIRTY
sp
FIRST
sp
OF
sp
OCTOBER
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
ONE
OR
FOR
SUCH
OTHER
PERIODS
sp
AS
THE
COURT
sp
DEEMS
sp
JUST
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
ALSO
APPEALED
sp
AGAINST
sp
THE
DECISION
sp
OF
sp
TAXING
sp
MASTER
RIGHT
sp
ER
sp
AND
THEN
APPEALED
ON
THE
BASIS
sp
THAT
ER
sp
THERE
SHOULD
BE
NO
DISALLOWANCE
sp
FOR
sp
ANY
INTEREST
sp
AT
sp
ALL
sp
THERE
IS
ALSO
sp
A
sp
FURTHER
sp
APPEAL
sp
BEFORE
THE
sp
COURT
sp
IN
RELATION
sp
TO
sp
AN
APPLICATION
sp
BY
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF
sp
FOR
sp
DISALLOWANCE
sp
OF
INTEREST
sp
UPON
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANT'S
sp
BILL
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
AND
ER
IT
sp
IS
sp
CLAIMED
sp
THAT
IF
INTEREST
IS
sp
TO
BE
DISALLOWED
ON
sp
THEIR
BILL
sp
INTEREST
SHOULD
ALSO
BE
DISALLOWED
ON
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANT'S
BILL
OF
COSTS
sp
SO
THE
MATTER
ARISES
IN
THIS
sp
WAY
sp
THE
ACTION
THAT
CONCERNS
A
sp
PARTNERSHIP
DISPUTE
sp
ER
BETWEEN
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
ON
THE
ONE
HAND
AND
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
ON
sp
THE
OTHER
ALL
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
AND
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
WERE
DOCTORS
sp
CARRYING
ON
sp
PRACTICE
AS
GENERAL
MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS
sp
AT
ER
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_ADDRESS}
sp
IT'S
ER
sp
UNFORTUNATELY
THE
CASE
THAT
sp
RELATIONS
BETWEEN
THE
PARTNERS
sp
BROKE
DOWN
sp
AND
THIS
LED
IN
DUE
sp
COURSE
sp
TO
sp
PROCEEDINGS
sp
BEING
COMMENCED
sp
BY
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
AGAINST
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
IN
RELATION
TO
THE
sp
DISSOLUTION
sp
OF
sp
THE
PARTNERS
sp
THOSE
PROCEEDINGS
WERE
COMMENCED
IN
NINETEEN
EIGHTY
sp
NINE
sp
{OOV}
sp
ER
sp
IN
sp
THE
sp
HIGH
sp
COURT
sp
CHANCERY
DIVISION
sp
THERE
WERE
A
NUMBER
OF
sp
ISSUES
RAISED
sp
IN
THE
LITIGATION
sp
ONE
OF
THE
MATTERS
sp
WAS
A
sp
PRELIMINARY
ISSUE
sp
ER
sp
CONCERNING
THE
TERMS
OF
sp
THE
PARTNERSHIP
sp
AND
THAT
sp
CAME
BEFORE
sp
ER
sp
MR
sp
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ON
THE
sp
EIGHTEENTH
sp
OF
FEBRUARY
NINETEEN
NINETY
ONE
WHEREBY
sp
HE
FOUND
IN
sp
FAVOUR
EFFECTIVELY
OF
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANT
sp
ON
THAT
PRELIMINARY
ISSUE
ER
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
IT
SEEMS
sp
WERE
THEN
sp
CLAIMING
THAT
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
THE
PARTNERSHIP
AT
sp
WILL
sp
BUT
MR
JUSTICE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HELD
sp
THAT
sp
THEY
WERE
sp
PART
OF
THE
TERMS
OF
sp
THE
sp
PARTICULAR
sp
ER
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
DEED
sp
SO
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
SUCCEEDED
sp
ON
THAT
ISSUE
sp
THE
TRIAL
OF
THE
sp
ACTION
sp
THEN
sp
FOLLOWED
sp
ON
THE
TWENTIETH
OF
MARCH
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
ONE
sp
AND
ER
sp
MR
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
MADE
AN
ORDER
FOR
sp
DISSOLUTION
OF
THE
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
HE
THEN
GIVE
sp
VARIOUS
DIRECTIONS
FOR
ACCOUNTANT
ENQUIRIES
sp
CONCERNING
sp
THE
PARTNERSHIP
sp
AND
HE
MADE
ORDERS
FOR
sp
PAYMENTS
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
NOW
THE
ORDERS
sp
FOR
sp
COSTS
sp
WERE
THIS
THAT
EFFECTIVELY
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANT
sp
WAS
ENTITLED
TO
SOME
COSTS
OF
sp
THE
sp
PRELIMINARY
ISSUE
sp
AND
sp
THAT
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
WERE
sp
ENTITLED
sp
TO
COSTS
sp
OF
sp
THE
ER
MA
sp
IF
sp
I
sp
MAY
sp
PUT
IT
sp
THIS
WAY
sp
THE
MAIN
ACTION
sp
AND
THERE
WAS
THEN
THE
PROVISION
sp
FOR
sp
SET
sp
OFF
FOR
THE
DEFENDANT'S
COSTS
sp
AGAINST
THE
COSTS
sp
ORDERED
TO
BE
PAID
sp
BY
sp
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
PERFECTLY
NORMAL
sp
FORM
OF
ORDER
sp
{XX}
sp
NOW
sp
IF
sp
THE
MATTER
sp
ARISES
ON
sp
TAXATION
IN
sp
THIS
sp
WAY
sp
IT
SEEMS
sp
THAT
A
LOAN
sp
THE
sp
TRIAL
sp
JUDGMENT
WAS
GIVEN
ON
THE
sp
TWENTIETH
sp
OF
sp
MARCH
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
ONE
sp
A
sp
MINUTE
sp
OF
ORDER
WAS
sp
PREPARED
sp
AND
sp
SIGNED
sp
BY
sp
COUNSEL
sp
FOR
sp
BOTH
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF
sp
AND
sp
FOR
sp
THE
DEFENDANTS
sp
AND
THAT
WAS
sp
FORWARDED
sp
BY
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANT'S
SOLICITORS
sp
TO
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF'S
sp
SOLICITORS
sp
UNDER
sp
COVER
OF
A
LETTER
sp
DATED
THE
TWENTY
THIRD
OF
APRIL
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
ONE
sp
ER
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
WHO
sp
IS
THE
DEFENDANT'S
SOLICITOR
sp
IN
THE
sp
THIRD
PARAGRAPH
sp
HAD
A
LETTER
sp
WROTE
AS
FOLLOWS
sp
I
ENCLOSE
A
sp
COPY
OF
THE
DRAFT
MINUTE
sp
BOARD
sp
APPROVED
BY
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
HE
OF
sp
COURSE
sp
WAS
sp
COUNSEL
sp
FOR
THE
sp
DEFENDANT
sp
YOU
ARE
NOW
sp
YOU
YOU
WERE
PRESUMABLY
NOW
ATTEND
sp
A
SEALED
sp
ORDER
sp
IT'S
ER
sp
COMMON
GROUND
THAT
IN
sp
FACT
sp
ER
sp
NO
SEALED
ORDER
WAS
DRAWN
UP
sp
UNTIL
sp
VERY
sp
CONSIDERABLY
sp
LATER
sp
THE
sp
SEALED
ORDER
sp
IS
IN
sp
FACT
sp
DATED
sp
THE
TWENTY
FIFTH
OF
sp
MAY
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
THREE
NOW
sp
BETWEEN
DURING
THE
PERIOD
sp
FROM
sp
THE
DECISION
sp
OF
sp
MR
JUSTICE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
IN
sp
MARCH
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
ONE
sp
AND
sp
THE
sp
ISSUE
OF
sp
THE
SEALED
ORDER
sp
IN
MAY
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
THREE
sp
IT'S
CLEAR
FROM
CORRESPONDENCE
WHICH
HAS
BEEN
sp
PUT
sp
BEFORE
ME
sp
THAT
THERE
WERE
ER
sp
VARIOUS
NEGOTIATIONS
AND
DISCUSSIONS
BETWEEN
THE
SOLICITORS
FOR
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF
sp
AND
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
DEALING
sp
WITH
THE
sp
QUESTIONS
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
AND
ALSO
WITH
sp
THE
sp
QUESTION
OF
sp
A
GENERAL
SETTLEMENT
OF
sp
THE
WHOLE
ACTION
sp
ER
sp
IT
WOULD
sp
BE
APPRECIATED
sp
OF
COURSE
THAT
MR
JUSTICE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ORDER
DOES
NOT
HAVE
THE
sp
EFFECT
OF
sp
DETERMINING
sp
FINALLY
THE
RIGHTS
sp
OF
THE
sp
PARTIES
sp
ERM
OTHER
sp
THAN
THE
PARTNERSHIP
HAS
IN
sp
FACT
sp
DISSOLVED
sp
BECAUSE
THERE
WERE
STILL
OUTSTANDING
ISSUES
sp
IN
sp
PARTICULAR
sp
RELATING
TO
THE
sp
PREMISES
WHICH
WERE
USED
AS
THE
SURGERY
sp
OF
THE
sp
PREMISES
sp
OF
THE
PART
OF
THE
{OOV}
OF
sp
THE
sp
PRACTICE
OR
PERHAPS
sp
I
SHOULD
SAY
sp
FORMER
PRACTICE
sp
THE
POSITION
sp
WAS
THAT
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
EFFECTIVELY
sp
RETAINED
sp
POSSESSION
sp
OF
THE
SURGERY
PREMISES
sp
AND
THE
DEFENDANT
ER
sp
MOVED
sp
OUT
sp
OF
sp
THE
PREMISES
sp
AND
sp
ER
sp
WENT
AND
sp
FOUND
sp
OTHER
sp
SURGERY
sp
PREMISES
sp
AND
sp
ER
THE
sp
POSITION
AS
I
UNDERSTAND
sp
IT
IS
THAT
HE
IS
sp
CARRYING
ON
sp
HIS
OWN
sp
PRACTICE
sp
TODAY
sp
FROM
OTHER
sp
PREMISES
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
ARE
SUCH
sp
AS
NOW
SURVIVING
sp
ARE
STILL
CONTINUE
TO
sp
PRACTICE
sp
FROM
sp
THE
sp
FORMER
sp
PART
OF
THE
sp
PREMISES
sp
IN
sp
{XX}
sp
ON
THE
FOURTEENTH
OF
sp
JULY
OF
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
THREE
sp
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
TOOK
OUT
A
SUMMONS
sp
WITH
A
VIEW
TO
sp
HAVING
sp
ALL
THE
OUTSTANDING
MATTERS
sp
RESOLVED
sp
AND
ER
sp
THIS
sp
SUMMONS
sp
CAME
BEFORE
sp
ERM
sp
DEPUTY
MASTER
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ON
sp
THE
sp
TWELFTH
OF
sp
AUGUST
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
THREE
sp
AND
HE
GAVE
sp
VARIOUS
DIRECTIONS
sp
INCLUDING
AN
ENQUIRY
sp
IN
RELATION
sp
TO
sp
HOW
sp
THE
sp
SURGERY
sp
PREMISES
sp
ER
sp
OUGHT
TO
sp
BE
DEALT
WITH
sp
AS
sp
IN
COURT
IN
THE
WINDING
UP
OF
sp
THE
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
AND
THAT
MATTER
WENT
BEFORE
MR
sp
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
LONG
sp
IN
sp
DECEMBER
sp
AND
HE
DECIDED
sp
THOSE
ISSUES
sp
AND
sp
GAVE
DIRECTIONS
sp
IN
RELATION
sp
TO
sp
AND
HOW
THE
PREMISES
ARE
TO
sp
BE
SOLD
sp
THE
EFFECT
OF
sp
THE
DIRECTIONS
sp
VERY
VAGUELY
sp
IS
THAT
sp
THE
sp
PREMISES
HAVE
TO
BE
OFFERED
sp
TO
THE
sp
PARTNERS
sp
IF
ONLY
ONE
OF
THE
PARTNERS
SHOWS
ANY
INTEREST
sp
THEN
THERE
IS
PROVISION
IN
sp
THE
sp
RELEVANT
sp
DEED
sp
FOR
sp
ASCERTAINING
sp
THE
sp
PRICE
sp
AND
THIS
IS
PUT
TO
THAT
sp
PARTNER
sp
AT
THAT
sp
PRICE
sp
IF
MORE
THAN
ONE
PARTNER
sp
WISHES
sp
TO
sp
BUY
sp
THE
PREMISES
sp
THEN
sp
THERE
IS
PROVISION
sp
FOR
A
sp
FIXING
OF
sp
A
sp
MINIMUM
sp
FIGURE
sp
AND
THEN
EACH
OF
THE
PARTNERS
HAS
TO
sp
PUT
IN
sp
SEALED
sp
OFFERS
sp
ER
sp
AND
THE
PREMISES
sp
WILL
BE
SOLD
TO
THE
PARTNER
sp
THE
FORMER
PARTNER
sp
WHO
PUT
IN
sp
THE
LAST
OFFER
sp
THAT
BROADLY
SPEAKING
sp
I
sp
THINK
sp
IS
THE
sp
SUBSTANCE
OF
sp
MR
sp
JUSTICE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ORDER
sp
THE
sp
POSITION
AT
THE
MOMENT
sp
IS
THAT
sp
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
TELLS
ME
sp
HE
WOULD
LIKE
TO
sp
ACQUIRE
THE
PREMISES
sp
BECAUSE
ERM
sp
A
LOW
sp
CRITICISM
HAS
sp
WAS
sp
MADE
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
PREMISES
sp
AS
sp
BEING
SUITABLE
sp
FOR
THE
sp
CARRY
ON
OF
THE
sp
DOCTORS
SURGERY
sp
IN
sp
PARTNER
A
DOCTOR'S
sp
SURGERY
IN
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
BECAUSE
NO
DOUBT
THE
SPACE
AND
sp
OTHER
MATTERS
ER
sp
THE
DEFENDANT
TELLS
ME
THAT
ERM
sp
THEY
ARE
PERFECTLY
SUITABLE
sp
FOR
sp
AS
IT
WERE
A
SOLE
sp
PETITIONER
sp
TO
CARRY
ON
HIS
sp
PRACTICE
FROM
THEM
sp
AND
THAT
IS
WHY
HE
WOULD
LIKE
sp
TO
sp
ACQUIRE
sp
IT
sp
NOW
THE
{CG}
sp
TAXATION
sp
OF
sp
THE
PLAINTIFF'S
sp
BILL
OF
sp
COSTS
CAME
BEFORE
sp
MASTER
sp
ER
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
AND
ER
{CG}
sp
IN
sp
HIS
TAXATION
sp
IT
sp
SEEMS
sp
AND
sp
I'M
I
sp
THINK
I'M
sp
RIGHT
IN
SAYING
sp
IT
IT
SEEMS
THAT
ERM
sp
THERE
IS
NO
SUBSTANTIAL
DISPUTE
AS
sp
TO
sp
THE
sp
PARTICULAR
ITEMS
sp
IN
sp
THE
sp
VARIOUS
sp
BILLS
OF
sp
COSTS
WITH
sp
WHICH
HE
WAS
CONCERNED
sp
IT
MAYBE
THAT
IF
sp
THERE
WERE
A
DISCREPANCY
sp
HE
sp
HAS
sp
HE
DEALT
sp
WITH
IT
sp
AND
NOTHING
HAS
BEEN
SAID
sp
BEFORE
ME
TODAY
sp
ER
sp
TO
SUGGEST
THAT
THE
sp
FIGURES
APPEARING
IN
sp
THE
sp
BILL
OF
COSTS
sp
OUGHT
TO
BE
VARIED
sp
AND
ACCORDINGLY
I
HAVE
NOT
ER
sp
HAVE
TO
sp
CONSIDER
sp
THE
DETAIL
sp
ITEMS
sp
IN
THE
BILL
OF
COSTS
sp
THE
ONLY
ISSUE
I
sp
DIDN'T
sp
DECIDE
IS
WHETHER
sp
MASTER
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
WAS
CORRECT
sp
IN
sp
DISALLOWING
sp
INTEREST
sp
FOR
THE
PERIOD
sp
THAT
HE
DID
sp
ER
sp
MR
sp
{XX}
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
FOR
THE
PLAINTIFF
sp
SAYS
THAT
HE
sp
WAS
sp
WRONG
ER
sp
THAT
THERE
WAS
NO
sp
GOOD
sp
REASON
sp
FOR
DISALLOWING
HIM
ANY
INTEREST
sp
AND
THAT
sp
ACCORDINGLY
sp
I
sp
ON
sp
THIS
sp
APPEAL
sp
SHOULD
ERM
sp
DISCHARGE
sp
OR
sp
REVERSE
THAT
PART
OF
sp
{OOV}
TAXING
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ORDER
AS
sp
DISALLOWED
sp
INTEREST
sp
ER
sp
DOCTOR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
SAYS
sp
NOT
ONLY
sp
WAS
THE
TAXING
sp
OFFICER
sp
RIGHT
sp
IN
sp
WHAT
HE
DID
sp
BUT
HE
SHOULD
OF
GONE
FURTHER
AND
AS
I
SAY
sp
HE
SHOULD
sp
OF
ERM
sp
DISALLOWED
sp
MORE
INTEREST
sp
THE
sp
BASIS
OF
WHICH
ERM
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
PUTS
FORWARD
sp
THAT
SUBMISSION
BEFORE
ME
sp
SEEMS
TO
BE
sp
TWO
sp
FOLD
sp
FIRST
HE
POINTS
OUT
sp
THAT
sp
IN
sp
FACT
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
FAILED
sp
TO
sp
PERFECT
sp
THE
ORDER
sp
OF
sp
MR
JUSTICE
ER
ER
SORRY
sp
MR
sp
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ERM
UNTIL
sp
THE
sp
TWENTY
sp
FIFTH
sp
OF
sp
MAY
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
THREE
sp
AND
sp
THAT
WAS
A
sp
I
sp
THINK
sp
HE
WOULD
SAY
A
sp
PROBABLE
sp
FAILURE
ON
sp
PART
OF
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
AND
THEIR
SOLICITORS
sp
TO
DO
WITH
WHAT
HIS
SOLICITOR
sp
HAD
ASKED
THEM
sp
TO
sp
DO
sp
IN
THE
LETTER
OF
THE
sp
TWENTY
THIRD
OF
APRIL
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
ONE
sp
THE
sp
OTHER
POINT
sp
WHICH
IS
MADE
BY
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANT
IS
sp
THIS
sp
HE
SAYS
THAT
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
HAVE
sp
BEEN
sp
GUILTY
OF
sp
DELAYING
TACTICS
sp
ER
sp
DURING
THE
sp
COURSE
OF
THIS
LITIGATION
sp
THE
RESULT
OF
WHICH
sp
HAS
BEEN
sp
THAT
ER
sp
HE
HAS
NOT
BEEN
ABLE
TO
REALIZE
HIS
sp
INTEREST
sp
IN
THE
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
PREMISES
sp
ALSO
HE
HAS
NOT
BEEN
sp
ABLE
sp
TO
ACQUIRE
sp
A
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
PREMISES
AND
HE
sp
HE
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
MENTIONED
TO
ME
THAT
TO
THE
sp
ACTUAL
CONVEYANCE
OF
THE
sp
PARTNERSHIP
sp
PREMISES
sp
HE'S
sp
HE
TELLS
ME
WAS
ONLY
sp
PRODUCED
I
THINK
sp
THIRTY
sp
{OOV}
AND
ER
THAT
ER
IT
WAS
ONLY
THEN
sp
THAT
sp
HE
REALIZED
THERE
sp
MIGHT
BE
A
CHANCE
THAT
HE
sp
COULD
sp
ACQUIRE
THE
sp
PREMISES
sp
FOR
HIMSELF
sp
BUT
HE
SAYS
sp
THAT
ER
sp
BECAUSE
OF
THE
sp
GENERAL
I
sp
THINK
THE
CASE
IS
sp
BECAUSE
OF
THE
GENERAL
sp
CONDUCT
OF
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
IN
DELAYING
sp
THE
sp
TRIAL
OF
THE
sp
ACTION
sp
ONE
WAY
OR
ANOTHER
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
PRACTICAL
sp
EFFECT
sp
HAS
sp
BEEN
sp
THAT
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
HAVE
sp
HAD
THE
sp
BENEFIT
sp
OF
sp
USE
sp
AND
OCCUPATION
OF
THE
sp
PREMISES
AT
WHICH
HE
ERM
sp
A
MAIN
VIEW
sp
HAS
A
sp
LOT
sp
OF
THAT
sp
INTEREST
sp
AND
THAT
sp
THEY
ARE
GETTING
sp
BENEFIT
sp
OF
sp
THE
KIND
FROM
THAT
OCCUPATION
sp
AND
HE
IS
NOT
GETTING
sp
ANY
sp
MONEY
sp
IN
RES
sp
IN
RESPECT
OF
THAT
AT
LEAST
sp
NOTHING
LIKE
ANY
MARKET
RENT
sp
BECAUSE
IT
sp
MAYBE
THAT
THERE
IS
A
FAIRLY
SMALL
sp
ER
sp
PAYMENT
BEING
MADE
BUT
I'M
NOT
TOO
ENTIRELY
sp
CLEAR
WHETHER
THAT
IS
sp
THE
CASE
OR
sp
NOT
sp
BUT
THE
{OOV}
sp
STOCK
BOND
sp
IS
sp
SUGGESTING
sp
THAT
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
HAVE
sp
BEEN
sp
OBTAINING
BENEFIT
sp
OF
sp
THE
USE
OF
THE
sp
PREMISES
sp
AT
HIS
EXPENSE
sp
AND
IN
THOSE
sp
CIRCUMSTANCES
IT
sp
IS
sp
UNFAIR
sp
ER
sp
IN
IN
sp
OR
OTHERWISE
NOT
APPROPRIATE
THAT
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
SHOULD
BE
ENTITLED
TO
OBTAIN
INTEREST
sp
ON
THEIR
sp
BILL
OF
COSTS
sp
IN
RESPECT
ESSENTIALLY
OF
sp
THE
sp
PERIOD
OF
sp
DELAY
sp
AND
WHEN
I
SAY
PERIOD
OF
DELAY
INCLUDED
THAT
sp
THE
sp
PERIOD
DURING
WHICH
THE
FORWARD
sp
OF
MR
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
REMAINED
sp
ERM
sp
UNPROTECTED
sp
WHEN
THE
MATTER
sp
CAME
BEFORE
THE
TAXING
sp
MASTER
sp
IT
APPEARS
TO
HAVE
PROCEEDED
sp
ON
sp
FOOTING
THAT
ERM
sp
ORDER
sp
TWENTY
EIGHTY
sp
RULE
sp
FOUR
sp
SORRY
sp
I
sp
RULE
sp
RULE
TWENTY
EIGHTY
sp
FOUR
{OOV}
sp
SIXTY
sp
TWO
ER
sp
WAS
THE
sp
RELEVANT
sp
ER
sp
PROVISION
sp
UNDER
WHICH
sp
ERM
sp
THE
TAXING
sp
MASTER
sp
DISALLOWED
sp
INTEREST
sp
ORDER
{OOV}
sp
ER
sp
RULE
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
FOUR
sp
PROVIDES
THAT
WHEN
A
PARTY
IS
sp
ENTITLED
TO
sp
COSTS
sp
AND
THAT
OF
COURSE
IS
THE
sp
CASE
sp
OF
THE
PLAINTIFFS
sp
A
sp
FAILS
WITHOUT
GOOD
REASON
TO
COMMENCE
OR
CONDUCT
sp
PROCEEDINGS
FOR
THE
TAXATION
OF
THOSE
COSTS
sp
IN
ACCORDANCE
sp
WITH
THIS
sp
ORDER
sp
OR
ANY
DIRECTION
sp
OR
sp
B
sp
DELAYS
LODGING
A
BILL
OF
sp
COSTS
FOR
TAXATION
sp
THE
TAXING
OFFICE
sp
MAY
sp
ONE
DISALLOW
sp
ALREADY
sp
PART
OF
sp
THE
COSTS
OF
sp
TAXATION
THAT
HE
WOULD
sp
OTHERWISE
sp
WOULD
WARN
sp
ABOUT
THE
PARTY
sp
AND
sp
TWO
AFTER
TAKING
INTO
ACCOUNT
ALL
THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
sp
INCLUDING
ANY
sp
PREJUDICE
SUFFERED
sp
BY
ANY
OTHER
sp
PARTY
sp
AS
RESULT
OF
SUCH
FAILURE
sp
OR
DELAY
sp
AS
THE
CASE
MAYBE
sp
AND
ANY
ADDITIONAL
INTEREST
PAYABLE
UNDER
SECTION
sp
SEVENTEEN
OF
sp
THE
sp
JUDGEMENTS
sp
ACT
sp
BECAUSE
OF
THE
sp
FAILURE
sp
OR
DELAY
sp
ALLOW
THE
PARTY
SO
ENTITLED
sp
LESS
THAN
THE
AMOUNT
HE
WOULD
OTHERWISE
sp
HAVE
ALLOWED
sp
ON
TAXATION
OF
THE
BILL
sp
ARE
WHOLLY
DISALLOWED
sp
THE
COSTS
{OOV}
HIS
sp
PROVISION
sp
FOR
AN
APPEAL
sp
TO
ALLOW
TO
THE
JUDGE
AND
CHAMBERS
sp
AND
THAT
IS
THE
sp
WAY
THE
sp
MATTER
sp
IS
COMING
sp
BEFORE
sp
ME
sp
WHETHER
sp
STRICTLY
sp
ORDER
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
ER
sp
ORDER
SIXTY
sp
RULE
TWENTY
sp
EIGHT
sp
FOR
sp
ERM
APPLIES
IN
THIS
CASE
IS
sp
NOT
sp
AMOUNT
ENTIRELY
sp
CLEAR
sp
TO
sp
ME
sp
BECAUSE
sp
THE
sp
OBLIGATION
sp
TO
LODGE
sp
A
BILL
OF
sp
TAXATION
sp
UNDER
sp
RULE
TWENTY
sp
NINE
sp
PROVIDES
THAT
sp
HE
MUST
sp
BEGIN
PROCEEDINGS
FOR
THE
TAXATION
sp
EITHER
WITHIN
THREE
MONTHS
AFTER
THE
JUDGEMENT
DIRECTION
sp
OR
ORDER
sp
OF
THE
TERMINATIONS
sp
ENTER
SIDES
ARE
OTHERWISE
PERFECTED
sp
AND
THAT
sp
IS
sp
PRESENTLY
sp
ON
IT'S
FACE
sp
WHICH
SEEMED
TO
BE
sp
DEBITED
sp
MAY
OF
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
THREE
sp
AND
ER
ACCORDINGLY
THAT
IS
sp
RIGHT
sp
IT'S
NOT
IN
sp
FACT
sp
BEEN
ANY
sp
FAILURE
TO
COMPLY
sp
WITH
ORDER
{OOV}
sp
ORDER
SIXTY
sp
TWO
RULE
TWENTY
NINE
sp
ONE
sp
AND
THAT
HASN'T
sp
BEEN
sp
DISREGARDED
sp
IT'S
NOT
ENTIRELY
sp
CLEAR
TO
sp
ME
THAT
sp
ERM
{XX}
THERE
sp
IS
ANY
sp
MATTER
COME
FROM
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
SUB
PARAGRAPH
sp
A
sp
OF
sp
RULE
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
FOUR
sp
IT
MAY
ALREADY
REQUIRE
sp
STILL
NEVERTHELESS
sp
ERM
sp
FALL
WITHIN
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
B
OF
sp
RULE
FO
sp
ERM
{OOV}
THERE
HAS
IN
sp
FACT
sp
BEEN
sp
A
DELAY
sp
IN
sp
LODGING
sp
THE
BILL
OF
sp
COSTS
FOR
sp
TAXATION
sp
THE
DELAY
sp
BEING
sp
REALLY
AND
sp
TRULY
THE
DELAY
sp
IN
sp
HAVING
sp
THE
sp
ORDER
sp
OF
sp
MR
JUSTICE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
PERFECTED
sp
AND
IT
SEEMS
TO
sp
ME
sp
THAT
ALTHOUGH
IN
sp
CHASING
sp
MATTERS
sp
GENERALLY
SPEAKING
sp
IT
IS
sp
THE
sp
COURT
WILL
sp
ITSELF
sp
DRAW
THE
sp
ORDER
sp
NEVERTHELESS
WHERE
ER
IT
sp
SEEMS
TO
BE
CLEARLY
IN
THIS
CASE
sp
WOULD
CONTEMPLATE
sp
IT
sp
THAT
sp
COUNSEL
WOULD
SIGN
A
sp
MINUTE
sp
ERM
sp
THAT
sp
COUNSEL
sp
DO
SIGN
A
sp
MINUTE
sp
AND
THAT
MINUTE
HAS
BEEN
SIGNED
HAVING
FORWARDED
BY
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
SOLICITORS
sp
TO
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
sp
SOLICITORS
sp
SEEMS
sp
TO
ME
IT
sp
MUST
BE
sp
THE
sp
CASE
THAT
sp
ERM
sp
THE
sp
OBLIGATION
sp
TO
sp
AS
IT
WERE
sp
FORWARD
sp
THAT
sp
MINUTE
TO
THE
sp
COURT
sp
IT
IS
AN
OBLIGATION
sp
WHICH
sp
WOULD
LIE
sp
UPON
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
SOLICITORS
sp
AND
IT
MAYBE
SAID
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
THERE
HAS
BEEN
DELAY
sp
AND
ERM
sp
ON
THE
BEST
IT
sp
SHOULD
sp
BE
LODGED
sp
WITH
THE
COURT
sp
SEALED
sp
ER
sp
SHORTLY
sp
AFTER
sp
IT
sp
WAS
RECEIVED
sp
AND
THAT
THEREFORE
ON
THAT
sp
FOOTING
sp
THERE
HAS
BEEN
sp
DELAY
sp
LODGING
sp
THE
sp
BILL
OF
COSTS
FOR
CONCESSION
sp
ER
sp
MR
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
DOESN'T
sp
SEEMED
TO
BE
TAKE
ANY
sp
POINT
sp
IN
sp
RELATION
TO
THAT
ER
sp
BECAUSE
IT'S
NOT
IN
sp
HIS
INTEREST
sp
TO
DO
SO
IT
sp
SEEMS
TO
BE
THAT
sp
HE
sp
DOES
HAVE
TO
sp
SAY
IF
IT
HAS
sp
BEEN
sp
DELAYED
sp
WITH
AN
ORDER
OF
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
RULE
sp
FOUR
sp
THAT'S
sp
A
RULE
sp
RULE
RULE
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
ER
sp
FOUR
sp
IF
sp
HE
IS
TO
sp
HAVE
sp
INTEREST
DISBARRED
sp
AND
ER
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ER
sp
HE'LL
APPARENTLY
HAVE
sp
THE
sp
MATTER
sp
OF
READ
BEFORE
THE
sp
TAXING
sp
MASTER
sp
IT
SEEMS
THAT
THE
sp
TAXING
MASTER
DID
NOT
sp
CHEW
ANY
SYMPATHY
sp
WITH
THAT
sp
ER
sp
SUGGESTION
sp
THAT
ER
THERE
sp
WAS
IN
FACT
NO
BREACH
sp
OF
sp
THE
REQUIREMENT
sp
RULE
TWENTY
sp
FOUR
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
HE
sp
SAID
sp
VERY
PROBABLY
THAT
ERM
sp
LOOK
ON
sp
TEXT
sp
UPON
IT
sp
HE
sp
REALLY
sp
IS
CONCERNED
sp
TO
sp
ERM
sp
HAVE
sp
THIS
CASE
sp
DEALT
WITH
sp
AS
YOU
sp
PUT
IT
sp
ON
THE
MERITS
sp
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
IT'S
IN
THE
INTEREST
OF
ALL
PARTIES
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
I
SHOULD
sp
DEAL
sp
WITH
THE
sp
CASE
sp
ON
MERITS
sp
HAVE
ON
THE
ASSUMPTION
sp
ERM
sp
THAT
ER
THAT
sp
THAT
WAS
LODGED
PROPERLY
sp
I
sp
THINK
I
CA
I
sp
A
sp
MATTER
sp
OF
WHICH
FOUND
WITHIN
RULE
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
FOUR
sp
AND
THAT
sp
THE
sp
TAXING
sp
OFFICER
GIVE
{OOV}
OUR
sp
INTEREST
sp
UNDER
sp
THAT
sp
RULE
RIGHT
sp
IT'S
sp
CLEAR
I
N'T
IT
UNDER
sp
FOUR
RULE
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
FOUR
sp
IT'S
NOT
ESSENTIAL
sp
FOR
sp
THE
DISALLOWANCE
OF
ANY
COST
OR
INTEREST
sp
THAT
ER
THE
TAXING
OFFICER
SHOULD
sp
BE
SATISFIED
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
THE
OTHER
PARTY
HAS
BEEN
PREJUDICED
sp
IN
FACT
THAT
IS
sp
NOT
A
sp
CONDITION
sp
PRECEDENT
sp
TO
THE
EXERCISE
OF
sp
HIS
sp
PART
AND
DISALLOW
sp
INTEREST
IN
sp
THIS
sp
HERE
sp
ITEM
sp
ER
sp
ANY
PREJUDICE
THERE
MAYBE
IS
MERELY
sp
ONE
sp
FACTOR
sp
TO
BE
TAKEN
INTO
ACCOUNT
sp
IN
OTHER
MATTERS
sp
AND
IT
DOES
sp
SEEM
TO
ME
THAT
THE
sp
FACT
THE
sp
COURT
sp
CAN
sp
CAN
PROPERLY
sp
AND
SHOULD
sp
PROPERLY
sp
TAKE
INTO
sp
ACCOUNT
sp
IS
sp
IS
THAT
ERM
sp
IT
IS
DESIRABLE
THAT
sp
{OOV}
TO
LITIGATION
SHOULD
sp
ERM
sp
COMPLY
sp
WITH
THERE
OBLIGATIONS
sp
EITHER
sp
EXPRESSLY
sp
EXPRESS
OR
sp
EXPLICIT
sp
UNDER
THE
RULES
OF
sp
THE
COURT
sp
TO
COMPLY
WITH
sp
MATTER
SUCH
AS
sp
IT
SHOULD
HAVE
sp
ORDERS
sp
PART
DRAWN
UP
sp
AND
SERVED
sp
AS
APPROPRIATE
sp
AS
I
SAY
IT
SEEMS
TO
sp
ME
sp
THAT
sp
ER
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
'S
sp
CAN
BE
sp
CRITICIZED
sp
IN
NOT
ERM
sp
HAVING
sp
PERFECTED
sp
THE
ORDER
OF
MR
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ER
BEFORE
sp
THEY
DID
SO
sp
BUT
ER
sp
I
HAVE
sp
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
TO
sp
LOOK
AT
sp
ALL
THE
sp
RELEVANT
sp
PICTURES
sp
IN
sp
THE
sp
CASE
sp
ER
sp
IF
IT
WERE
THE
CASE
THAT
THE
PLAINTIFF
sp
SUFFERED
ANY
PREJUDICE
AS
sp
THE
RESULT
OF
sp
THAT
sp
CLAIM
sp
CLEARLY
THAT
WOULD
BE
A
MATTER
WHICH
sp
I
WOULD
HAVE
sp
TO
TAKE
sp
INTO
ACCOUNT
sp
BUT
I'M
BOUND
TO
SAY
IT
DOESN'T
SEEM
TO
ME
THAT
THE
sp
FENDER
OF
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
TO
sp
PERFECT
THE
ORDER
sp
DID
IN
FACT
sp
CAUSE
ANY
sp
PREJUDICE
TO
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF
sp
AND
INDEED
IF
sp
THEY
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
HAD
sp
PERFECTED
THE
ORDER
sp
IT
SEEMS
TO
sp
ME
EXACTLY
THE
SAME
sp
COURSE
OF
EVENTS
sp
AS
IN
FACT
sp
TRANSPIRED
sp
IN
sp
THIS
CASE
sp
WOULD
ACTUALLY
HAVE
sp
OCCURRED
sp
AND
WOULDN'T
MAKE
ANY
DIFFERENCE
AT
ALL
sp
SO
UNLESS
IT'S
A
MATTER
OF
SIMPLY
sp
OF
ER
SEEKING
TO
sp
PUNISH
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF
sp
AS
A
sp
MATTER
OF
sp
DISCIPLINE
sp
IT
SEEMS
sp
TO
ME
THERE
IS
A
sp
NOT
REALLY
ANYTHING
sp
IN
THE
sp
POINT
sp
THAT
sp
THE
sp
ORDER
WAS
NOT
PERFECTED
sp
ER
sp
WHEN
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
IT
SHOULD
OF
sp
BEEN
AND
I
sp
THERE
STOOD
sp
TO
SEE
THE
OTHER
ER
sp
CIRCUMSTANCES
sp
NOW
IT'S
sp
QUITE
CLEAR
TO
sp
ME
HAVING
BEEN
REFERRED
TO
sp
CORRESPONDENCE
sp
PASSING
BETWEEN
THE
SOLICITORS
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
ALTHOUGH
sp
REALLY
FROM
A
VERY
EARLY
sp
STAGE
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
SOLICITORS
sp
{XX}
sp
REFERRING
TO
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
A
sp
LETTER
sp
OF
EARLY
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
ONE
sp
INDICATING
THAT
ERM
sp
THE
VIEW
WAS
BEING
sp
TAKEN
THAT
THE
LIKELIHOOD
WAS
sp
THAT
ERM
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
WOULD
HAVE
sp
TO
GET
THEIR
sp
COSTS
sp
OUT
OF
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
sp
SHARE
AND
sp
INTEREST
sp
IN
THE
PREMISES
sp
AND
ER
sp
THAT
WOULD
BE
A
MATTER
sp
WHICH
COULD
ONLY
BE
DEALT
sp
WITH
sp
WHEN
sp
THE
ENQUIRIES
DIRECTOR
sp
BY
sp
MR
sp
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
HAD
sp
BEEN
sp
DEALT
WITH
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
WAS
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
sp
SOLICITORS
sp
THE
sp
PARTIES
sp
DURING
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
ONE
THE
sp
TWO
SOLICITORS
sp
HAD
sp
DEALT
WITH
THE
sp
QUESTION
sp
OF
COSTS
sp
AND
ER
sp
PERFECTLY
sp
NORMAL
sp
WAY
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
HAVE
sp
THEIR
COSTS
{OOV}
sp
DRAFTED
sp
BY
sp
ER
sp
COST
DRAUGHTSMAN
I
UNDERSTAND
sp
THAT
IN
HOUSE
sp
DRAUGHTSMAN
sp
AND
ERM
sp
THEY
PRODUCED
TO
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
A
BILL
sp
FOR
COSTS
sp
ER
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
LOOKED
AT
sp
THE
BILL
sp
AND
MET
COUNTER
sp
PROPOSALS
sp
AND
sp
HE
SUGGESTED
sp
OTHER
sp
FIGURES
sp
ERM
sp
FIGURES
IN
sp
THE
sp
REGION
OF
sp
FORTY
sp
TWO
sp
THOUSAND
sp
POUNDS
sp
FORTY
sp
SEVEN
AND
FIFTY
THOUSAND
sp
POUNDS
sp
FOR
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
COSTS
sp
THE
CORRESPONDENCE
sp
INDICATES
sp
THAT
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
THEN
sp
NOW
PUT
sp
FORWARD
sp
WHAT
sp
WITH
RESPECT
SEEMS
TO
BE
sp
ENTIRELY
SENSIBLE
sp
SUGGESTION
sp
THAT
ER
sp
REALLY
IT
WOULD
NOT
BE
sp
SENSIBLE
sp
TO
PROCEED
WITH
sp
HAVING
THE
COST
TAXED
sp
HE
SAID
HE
DIDN'T
FORESEE
ANY
sp
REAL
DIFFICULTY
sp
IN
sp
GETTING
THEM
TO
sp
AGREE
THE
COSTS
sp
AND
THAT
ER
sp
THE
COMMON
SENSE
THING
IN
THE
INTEREST
OF
ALL
sp
PARTIES
sp
WAS
TO
SEE
IF
THEY
sp
COULD
sp
REACH
sp
AN
OVERALL
sp
{OOV}
SETTLEMENT
ER
sp
DETERMINING
ALL
THE
MATTERS
IN
DISPUTE
sp
EFFECTIVELY
THIS
WOULD
sp
BE
sp
WHAT
WAS
TO
BE
DONE
IN
RESPECT
OF
THE
sp
SURGERY
PREMISES
sp
THERE
WAS
I
sp
THINK
sp
THERE
IS
REFERENCE
IN
sp
ACCOUNTED
TO
ANOTHER
sp
SEC
sp
ANOTHER
sp
PREMISES
sp
AS
sp
WELL
sp
WHICH
APPARENTLY
WERE
LEASE
ER
sp
BUT
sp
ARE
NOW
sp
FORMED
PART
OF
sp
THE
sp
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
AND
ER
sp
NEGOTIATIONS
CONTINUED
sp
BETWEEN
THE
PARTIES
sp
DURING
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
TWO
sp
BY
THE
END
OF
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
TWO
sp
THE
NEGOTIATIONS
WERE
BEGINNING
TO
sp
RUN
INTO
sp
DIFFICULTIES
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
WERE
BEGINNING
TO
PUT
FORWARD
sp
NON
NEGOTIABLE
sp
FINAL
sp
OFFERS
sp
AND
sp
ER
THE
sp
RESULT
sp
UNFORTUNATELY
WAS
THAT
IN
sp
APPARENTLY
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
THREE
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
NEGOTIATIONS
INTO
sp
THAT
sp
BROKE
DOWN
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
WAS
WELL
AWARE
sp
BECAUSE
HE'D
BEEN
sp
TOLD
sp
BY
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
SOLICITORS
THAT
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
RECEIVED
sp
TERMS
sp
FOR
sp
COVER
sp
OR
sp
TO
OBTAIN
sp
INTEREST
sp
ON
THEIR
COSTS
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
SOLICITORS
sp
WROTE
sp
SPECIFICALLY
TO
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ENQUIRING
sp
WAS
HIS
sp
OFFER
sp
IN
sp
IN
THE
SUM
OF
sp
FORTY
sp
TWO
THOUSAND
sp
POUNDS
sp
THAT'S
ER
sp
THE
sp
POSSIBLE
sp
AGREED
sp
SETTLEMENT
FIGURE
sp
FOR
sp
COSTS
ER
IF
sp
IT
WAS
sp
INCLUSIVE
OR
EXCLUSIVE
OF
INTEREST
sp
ERM
sp
THERE
WERE
sp
SOME
sp
DELAY
BUT
ER
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
WROTE
BACK
IN
DUE
sp
COURSE
MAKING
sp
CLEAR
sp
THAT
INTEREST
WASN'T
sp
INCLUDED
sp
I
SHOULD
ALSO
SAY
THAT
sp
IN
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ER
PROPOSED
sp
BILL
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
HE
HAD
sp
DISALLOWED
INTEREST
sp
FOR
sp
A
FAIRLY
SHORT
sp
PERIOD
IN
sp
RESPECT
OF
sp
BOTH
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
BILL
OF
COSTS
sp
AND
THE
DEFENDANTS
sp
BILL
OF
COSTS
sp
AND
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
SOLICITORS
sp
DON'T
APPEAR
TO
HAVE
sp
ERM
sp
TAKEN
ANY
sp
POINT
sp
ON
THAT
sp
BUT
AS
I
SAY
IT
sp
THE
POINT
AS
TO
sp
INTEREST
sp
WAS
SPECIFICALLY
RAISED
BY
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
SOLICITORS
sp
LETTER
sp
AND
sp
ER
sp
I'M
sp
QUITE
SATISFIED
ON
THE
sp
CORRESPONDENCE
sp
THAT
sp
THEY
sp
WHEN
IT
CAME
TO
sp
THE
sp
MATTER
sp
WERE
SEEN
sp
WERE
DESIRES
sp
OF
sp
OBTAINING
INTEREST
IN
sp
RESPECT
sp
OF
sp
THEIR
sp
COSTS
THE
LETTER
{XX}
sp
FROM
sp
THE
PLAINTIFFS
SOLICITORS
sp
IN
sp
RESPECT
OF
sp
QUESTION
sp
OF
sp
INTEREST
sp
ONE
sp
CAUSES
sp
THE
LETTER
sp
OF
THE
TWENTY
sp
NINTH
sp
OF
sp
JANUARY
sp
OF
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
TWO
sp
ASKING
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
TO
sp
CONFIRM
sp
THAT
IN
ADDITION
TO
THE
SETTLEMENT
FIGURE
OF
FORTY
TWO
THOUSAND
POUNDS
IN
sp
RESPECT
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
HE'D
BE
PAYING
INTEREST
UNTIL
sp
THE
DATE
OF
sp
PAYMENT
AND
sp
ER
sp
THERE
WAS
NEVER
A
MIND
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
WHICH
FIND
A
sp
REPLY
TO
IN
sp
IN
sp
THIRTIETH
sp
OF
sp
MARCH
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
TWO
sp
BY
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
THERE'S
NO
UNQUALIFIED
AGREEMENT
sp
IN
sp
FIGURE
OF
FORTY
TWO
THOUSAND
POUNDS
sp
I
DO
NOT
WISH
TO
APPEAR
OBSTRUCTIVE
BUT
YOUR
CLIENTS
sp
MUST
RECOGNISE
THAT
THERE
ARE
sp
EFFECTIVELY
TWO
ISSUES
TO
BE
RESOLVED
NAMELY
sp
THE
PAYMENT
OF
THEIR
COSTS
sp
AND
THE
DIVISION
OF
THE
sp
PARTS
sp
OF
OTHER
PROPERTY
sp
SURELY
IN
ALL
PARTIES
sp
INTEREST
THAT
NONE
OF
sp
THESE
sp
ARE
sp
RESOLVED
sp
SO
IT
IS
sp
SURELY
IN
sp
ALL
PARTY
INTEREST
sp
THAT
sp
THOSE
sp
THOSE
sp
ARE
RESOLVED
sp
CONTEMPORARY
sp
{OOV}
sp
AND
THEN
THE
LETTER
GOES
ON
TO
DEALING
WITH
sp
QUESTIONS
OF
sp
VALUATION
sp
THE
sp
BOTTOM
PARAGRAPH
ON
sp
PAGE
THIRTY
sp
TWO
IN
THE
BUNDLE
sp
SAYS
sp
IN
ANSWER
TO
sp
YOUR
LETTER
THEREFORE
sp
IS
THAT
THERE
IS
NO
AGREEMENT
TO
PAY
INTEREST
sp
IF
THERE
IS
sp
THEN
MY
CLIENT
MUST
BE
sp
CREDITED
WITH
INTEREST
ON
sp
HIS
sp
COSTS
sp
AND
THEN
IT
sp
SAYS
{OOV}
sp
SURGERY
sp
AND
FINALLY
IF
sp
{OOV}
IF
OVERALL
AGREEMENT
CAN
NOT
BE
REACHED
THEN
MY
CLIENT
RESERVES
sp
HIS
RIGHTS
ON
THE
sp
ISSUE
sp
OF
COSTS
sp
AND
I
FEEL
THAT
THIS
COULD
LEAD
TO
AN
ACRIMONIOUS
AND
PROTRACTED
TAXATION
sp
AT
THE
END
OF
THE
DAY
I
SUSPECT
IT
sp
WOULD
ONLY
BE
ENFORCED
THE
ORDER
FOR
COSTS
ABOUT
TAKING
A
CHARGE
sp
IN
MY
CLIENTS
sp
INTEREST
IN
THE
SURGERY
sp
PREMISES
sp
DOES
THAT
IMPROVE
YOUR
CLIENTS
sp
POSITION
sp
AT
sp
ALL
AS
I
SAY
sp
THAT
sp
WAS
sp
THE
POSITION
OF
sp
THE
THIRTIETH
OF
MARCH
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
TWO
sp
AND
DURING
THE
REMAINDER
OF
sp
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
TWO
THERE
WERE
THEN
sp
FURTHER
sp
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
SOME
OF
THEM
sp
APPEARED
TO
HAVE
BEEN
sp
CARRIED
OUT
ER
sp
PERSONALLY
BETWEEN
sp
ER
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
ER
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
WHICH
SEEMS
TO
OF
BEEN
THE
sp
PARTNER
sp
DEALING
WITH
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
POSITION
sp
AND
ER
sp
HE
SAYS
ABOUT
sp
HIS
sp
NON
sp
NEGOTIABLE
OFFER
sp
AT
sp
PAGE
FORTY
ONE
IN
sp
THE
sp
BUNDLE
sp
APPARENTLY
ATTACHED
TO
A
LETTER
OF
sp
THE
sp
TWENTY
FIRST
OF
DECEMBER
NINETEEN
sp
NINETY
sp
TWO
sp
AND
ER
sp
THAT
HAD
A
sp
TIME
LIMIT
ON
sp
THE
sp
TWENTY
sp
SECOND
OF
sp
MARCH
sp
THERE
sp
WAS
A
REMINDER
ON
sp
THE
sp
TWENTY
sp
SECOND
OF
sp
FEBRUARY
AND
sp
ERM
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
SOLICITORS
sp
WROTE
sp
ON
THE
sp
FOURTEENTH
OF
sp
APRIL
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
THREE
sp
RAISING
THE
sp
QUESTION
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
ERM
sp
SAY
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
WE
HAVE
NOW
RECEIVED
YOUR
CLIENTS
INSTRUCTIONS
THAT
THEY
WOULD
sp
BE
PREPARED
TO
ACCEPT
THE
SUM
OF
FORTY
TWO
THOUSAND
IN
sp
RESPECT
OF
THEIR
STANDARD
BASIS
sp
COSTS
WHICH
IS
INCLUSIVE
OF
sp
V
A
T
AND
DISBURSEMENTS
sp
YOU
REMEMBER
THAT
OUR
INITIAL
SCHEDULE
sp
OF
COSTS
WHICH
I
SET
PART
OF
MY
LETTER
sp
OF
THE
EIGHTH
OF
sp
OCTOBER
sp
TOTAL
sp
FIFTY
THOUSAND
NINE
sp
HUNDRED
AND
NINETY
sp
EIGHT
sp
POUNDS
TWENTY
sp
SIX
sp
PENCE
sp
IN
ADDITION
TO
THIS
OUR
CLIENT
sp
WOULD
REQUIRE
INTEREST
sp
FROM
sp
THE
{OOV}
WHICH
IS
sp
AS
OF
sp
TODAYS
DATE
AT
SEVEN
HUNDRED
AND
SIXTY
DAYS
AT
SEVENTEEN
POUNDS
TWENTY
SIX
A
DAY
sp
TOTALLING
sp
THIRTEEN
THOUSAND
sp
ONE
HUNDRED
sp
AND
SEVENTEEN
sp
POUNDS
SIXTY
sp
IN
THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
I
sp
LOOK
sp
FORWARD
TO
RECEIVING
YOUR
CLIENTS
sp
CHEQUE
FOR
THE
sp
SUM
sp
OF
sp
FIFTY
FIVE
sp
THOUSAND
sp
ONE
HUNDRED
AND
SEVENTEEN
sp
POUNDS
AND
SIXTY
sp
PENCE
sp
WITHIN
sp
THE
NEXT
SEVEN
DAYS
sp
AND
sp
THEN
IT
SAYS
I
BELIEVE
YOU
WERE
sp
CERTAINLY
AGREEING
HAVE
BEEN
VERY
sp
PATIENT
CONCERNING
YOUR
CLIENTS
COSTS
sp
BUT
NOW
sp
WE
WISH
sp
THESE
TO
BE
sp
PAID
sp
AND
THAT
WAS
RESPONDED
TO
ER
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ON
THE
sp
TWENTY
sp
SECOND
sp
OF
sp
APRIL
ER
sp
BUT
sp
WHY
HE
sp
QUITE
HAS
sp
NOT
BEEN
DIRECTLY
INVOLVED
IN
THE
CONVERSATION
FOR
SOME
sp
TIME
sp
AND
THERE
sp
WAS
NOT
REASONABLE
EXPECTED
RESPONSE
sp
FOR
sp
SEVEN
sp
DAYS
sp
FROM
HIM
ER
sp
AND
THEN
HE
GOES
ON
TO
SAY
THAT
ALTHOUGH
HE
APPRECIATES
HIS
FIRM
IS
STILL
ON
THE
RECORD
sp
I
SHALL
SEEK
INSTRUCTIONS
FROM
MY
sp
CLIENT
sp
BUT
IT
MAYBE
HE
WOULD
WISH
TO
GIVE
NOTICE
OF
ACTING
IN
sp
PERSON
sp
AND
INDEED
sp
THAT
sp
IS
sp
IN
sp
FACT
sp
WHAT
sp
HAPPENED
WHAT
HAPPENED
IN
THIS
CASE
NOW
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
WITH
ERM
sp
WITH
sp
GREAT
sp
RESPECT
sp
FROM
THE
VIEW
OF
sp
THE
sp
TAXING
sp
OFFICER
sp
THAT
ER
IT'S
QUITE
sp
CLEAR
sp
THAT
sp
ER
sp
BOTH
sp
PARTIES
sp
WERE
sp
HOLDING
HAN
sp
WERE
sp
HOLDING
THEIR
HANDS
sp
IN
sp
RELATION
sp
TO
A
sp
QUESTION
sp
OF
TAXATION
sp
BECAUSE
sp
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
WERE
sp
GOING
ON
BETWEEN
THE
sp
PARTIES
sp
AND
INDEED
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
WERE
BEING
REQUESTED
sp
ER
NOT
TO
sp
PROCEED
WITH
sp
TAXATION
sp
BUT
TO
SEE
IF
THEY
COULD
OBTAIN
sp
AN
sp
OVERALL
{OOV}
ASSESSMENT
sp
AND
THE
POINT
sp
WAS
MET
TO
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
sp
BARRISTER
sp
TELLING
QUITE
sp
FRANKLY
sp
THERE
sp
WOULDN'T
BE
MUCH
sp
ADVANTAGE
IN
THE
DEFENDANTS
sp
PUSHING
ON
sp
WITH
sp
ERM
TAXATION
BECAUSE
THEY'D
ONLY
THEY
sp
WOULD
HAVE
sp
TO
LOOK
sp
TO
sp
HIS
sp
INTEREST
sp
IN
THE
sp
PROPERTY
TO
GET
PAYMENT
sp
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
IN
THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES
sp
THAT
IT
CAN
NOT
BE
SAID
sp
THAT
ERM
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
WERE
IN
ANY
WAY
sp
ACTING
IMPROPERLY
sp
AND
NOT
sp
SEEKING
TO
sp
HAVE
sp
THE
sp
COSTS
TAXED
sp
DURING
THE
PERIOD
WHILE
THE
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
WERE
sp
BEING
CARRIED
ON
sp
ER
sp
BECAUSE
sp
EFFECTIVELY
AND
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
REPLIED
sp
THAT
IS
WHAT
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
WAS
ASKING
THE
sp
OTHER
sp
TO
DO
THAT
IS
TO
sp
HOLD
THEIR
sp
HAND
AND
TO
ENTER
INTO
sp
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
NOW
I
FULLY
APPRECIATE
sp
THAT
sp
ERM
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
FEELS
STRONGLY
THAT
sp
THE
DEFENDANTS
HAVE
sp
NOT
BEEN
sp
NEGOTIATING
sp
IN
sp
GOOD
sp
FAITH
AND
sp
HAVE
sp
BEEN
SIMPLY
sp
DRAGGING
sp
MATTERS
OUT
sp
FOR
HIS
BENEFIT
sp
NOW
WHEN
I
SAY
sp
THAT
I'M
sp
SIMPLY
sp
SAYING
WHAT
I
UNDERSTAND
TO
BE
sp
DOCTOR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
VIEW
sp
I'M
sp
CERTAINLY
NOT
SUGGESTING
THAT
sp
I'M
sp
FINDING
sp
AS
A
FACT
BUT
THAT
sp
WAS
THE
DECISION
INDEED
I
COULDN'T
{OOV}
COS
sp
I'VE
NOT
HEARD
sp
ALL
THE
EVIDENCE
sp
ON
THIS
MATTER
sp
NOT
AS
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
TO
ADDRESS
ME
ON
THAT
ONE
sp
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
WITH
ALL
sp
RESPECT
sp
TO
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
MISSIONS
sp
ON
sp
THIS
sp
MATTER
sp
THAT
sp
IF
sp
THERE
HAS
sp
BEEN
sp
ANY
sp
DRAGGING
OF
sp
FEET
OR
OTHER
sp
IMPROPER
sp
CONDUCT
OF
EITHER
THE
DEFENDANTS
sp
IN
CONNECTION
WITH
sp
ER
sp
THEY
REMAIN
sp
ON
IN
THE
sp
PREMISES
sp
AND
NOT
PAYING
WHAT
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
WOULD
CONSIDER
TO
sp
BE
A
sp
FULL
sp
AND
sp
PROPER
RENT
OR
IF
THERE
HAS
BEEN
sp
PROBLEM
sp
ABOUT
THEIR
NOT
DISCLOSING
sp
DOCUMENTS
WHEN
THEY
sp
SHOULD
HAVE
DONE
sp
THE
POSITION
sp
IS
THAT
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HAS
{OOV}
ER
sp
BY
MAKING
AN
APPROPRIATE
APPLICATION
TO
THE
sp
COURT
sp
FOR
{OOV}
MAYBE
THE
APPROPRIATE
RELIEF
sp
ARISING
OUT
OF
sp
THE
sp
FACTS
WHICH
HE
CAN
sp
ESTABLISH
sp
BUT
THAT
IS
sp
NOT
sp
IN
sp
GENERAL
sp
A
MATTER
sp
WHICH
sp
ERM
sp
THE
COURT
SHOULD
GO
INTO
sp
ON
THE
QUESTION
OF
sp
TAXATION
sp
IT'S
NOT
sp
TH
THIS
PARTICULAR
TAXATION
sp
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
IS
A
TAXATION
AS
I
UNDERSTAND
IT
sp
THAT
ARE
sp
FORMALLY
sp
TO
THE
DEBT
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
ORDER
OF
sp
MR
sp
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
THERE
IS
THUS
NO
QUESTION
OF
sp
THE
COURT
HAVING
TO
sp
CONSIDER
THE
sp
QUESTION
WHEN
sp
THE
THOSE
sp
TAX
THOSE
sp
COSTS
sp
HAVE
sp
BEEN
SWOLLEN
OR
sp
INCREASED
IN
ANY
sp
WAY
sp
BY
sp
REASON
OF
sp
SPINNING
OUT
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
WHETHER
TO
sp
RUN
UP
COSTS
OR
OTHERWISE
THAT
sp
SIMPLY
DOESN'T
ARISING
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
IN
sp
THIS
CASE
sp
THAT
MAYBE
A
MATTER
WHICH
MAY
ARISE
sp
POSSIBLY
AT
SOME
FUTURE
DATE
sp
THOUGH
I
WOULD
HOPE
sp
IT
sp
WOULD
NOT
sp
DO
sp
SO
sp
BUT
ER
SO
FAR
AS
sp
THE
COSTS
DOWN
TO
THE
sp
END
OF
THE
TRIAL
OF
sp
THE
sp
TWENTIETH
OF
sp
MARCH
NINETEEN
NINETY
ONE
sp
ARE
sp
CONCERNED
sp
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
THE
sp
FACT
THAT
THE
PARTIES
sp
MAYBE
sp
NEGOTIATING
SUBSEQUENTLY
sp
TO
DETER
sp
TO
{OOV}
sp
TO
sp
RESOLVE
THE
sp
OUTSTANDING
ISSUE
sp
IT'S
NOT
A
MATTER
sp
WHICH
REALLY
GOES
TO
THE
sp
QUESTION
sp
OF
sp
ERM
sp
WHAT
IS
THE
PROPER
AMOUNT
sp
TO
ALLOW
sp
FOR
sp
TAXATION
sp
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
WHICH
HAVE
ALREADY
BEEN
INCURRED
sp
BEFORE
THESE
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
ERM
sp
WE
DON'T
sp
THE
sp
FIGURE
OF
THE
COSTS
APPEARS
TO
HAVE
sp
BEEN
sp
EFFECTIVELY
AGREED
BETWEEN
THE
SOLICITORS
sp
AT
sp
FORTY
TWO
sp
THOUSAND
sp
POUNDS
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF
SOLICITORS
MADE
IT
sp
QUITE
sp
CLEAR
THAT
THEY
WERE
SEEKING
INTEREST
sp
THIS
WAS
CLEAR
IN
sp
APPARENTLY
OF
sp
NINETEEN
NINETY
sp
TWO
sp
BUT
THIS
HELD
THEIR
HAND
sp
ER
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
THE
REASON
THEY
HELD
THEIR
HAND
RATHER
sp
THAN
sp
INDICATE
IT
WAS
sp
BECAUSE
THE
DEFENDANT
sp
THROUGH
HIS
SOLICITOR
sp
WAS
ASKING
THEM
sp
TO
DO
SO
sp
AND
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
THAT
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
WAS
ACTING
sp
VERY
SENSIBLY
IN
THE
DEFENDANTS
INTEREST
BECAUSE
IF
IN
sp
FACT
THEY
HAD
GONE
AHEAD
AND
sp
TAXED
THEIR
sp
COSTS
sp
THERE
AND
sp
THEN
sp
THE
POSITION
WOULD
SIMPLY
BE
sp
THAT
THERE
WOULD
OF
BEEN
AN
AWARD
sp
FOR
TAXATION
sp
IN
ORDER
THERE
sp
WOULD
BE
A
TAXATION
sp
RESULTING
sp
IN
AN
ORDER
sp
FOR
PAYMENT
OF
OF
SOME
sp
COST
sp
PROBABLY
IN
THE
REGION
sp
OF
sp
FORTY
sp
TWO
sp
THOUSAND
sp
POUNDS
AND
ER
THAT
sp
ORDER
WOULD
ITSELF
sp
CARRY
INTEREST
UNDER
THE
JUDGEMENTS
ACT
sp
IT
DOESN'T
SEEM
TO
sp
ME
IT
CAN
BE
sp
SENSIBLY
SAID
sp
THAT
sp
ERM
sp
ANY
INTEREST
HAS
TO
BE
IN
ANY
WAY
INCREASED
sp
BY
REASON
OF
sp
THIS
sp
DELAY
sp
AND
IT
SEEMS
TO
ME
THAT
ERM
sp
{XX}
sp
IF
ONE
LOOKS
AT
sp
ORDER
sp
SIXTY
TWO
AND
TWENTY
EIGHT
sp
ER
sp
CERTAINLY
UNDER
sp
PARAGRAPH
B
sp
TWO
sp
ERM
sp
THERE'S
sp
A
sp
REFERENCE
sp
THERE
sp
TO
ANY
ADDITIONAL
INTEREST
sp
PAYABLE
sp
UNDER
SECTION
SEVENTEEN
BECAUSE
OF
sp
THE
FAILURE
sp
ON
sp
THE
MAY
sp
ERM
sp
IT
DOESN'T
SEEM
TO
sp
ME
THAT
sp
THE
sp
EFFECT
sp
OF
sp
WHAT
HAS
sp
IN
sp
FACT
INCURRED
sp
IN
THIS
CASE
sp
HAS
BEEN
sp
CAUSED
ANY
ADDITIONAL
INTEREST
sp
TO
sp
BE
sp
PAID
sp
AND
ER
IT
sp
SEEMS
TO
ME
THE
ONLY
BEST
THAT
I
CAN
SEE
IN
THE
EVIDENCE
sp
BEFORE
sp
ME
sp
TO
sp
WHICH
sp
WOULD
ENABLE
sp
THE
sp
COURT
sp
TO
ERM
sp
CONCLUDE
THAT
THERE
SHOULD
BE
A
DISALLOWANCE
OF
INTEREST
sp
WOULD
BE
sp
AS
I
SAY
BECAUSE
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
APPEAR
NOT
TO
HAVE
PERFECTED
THE
ORDER
FOR
sp
THE
sp
PAYMENT
OF
sp
PERFECTIVELY
TWO
sp
YEARS
sp
JUST
OVER
sp
TWO
YEARS
sp
ERM
sp
IT
SEEMS
sp
TO
ME
sp
HOWEVER
sp
THAT
sp
THAT
sp
ON
BALANCE
sp
PROBABLY
sp
IT
sp
SIMPLY
A
MATTER
sp
OF
OVERSIGHT
sp
AND
EVEN
IF
IT
HAD
BEEN
sp
PERFECTED
sp
IT
sp
WOULDN'T
OF
MADE
AS
I
GUESS
sp
THE
LEAST
BIT
OF
DIFFERENCE
sp
TO
THE
WAY
THE
NEGOTIATIONS
sp
ER
PROCEEDED
sp
AND
ACCORDINGLY
sp
I
TAKE
sp
THE
sp
VIEW
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
THERE
ARE
sp
NO
sp
GROUNDS
sp
FOR
sp
DISALLOWING
INTEREST
sp
FROM
EITHER
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
BILL
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
OR
THE
DEFENDANTS
sp
BILL
OF
COSTS
sp
ACCORDINGLY
sp
ERM
{OOV}
TO
ALLOW
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
sp
APPEAL
sp
IN
PREPARATION
TO
THE
sp
DISALLOWANCE
sp
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
ER
INTEREST
sp
AND
sp
TO
DISMISS
sp
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
sp
APPEAL
sp
FOR
APPLICATION
sp
IN
RELATION
sp
TO
sp
AN
ADDITIONAL
sp
PERIOD
sp
P
SIXTY
OF
sp
COURSE
DISALLOWED
sp
I
ALSO
sp
PROPOSE
TO
DISMISS
sp
THE
SUM
OF
sp
THE
APPEAL
BY
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
FROM
THE
REFUSAL
sp
OF
sp
TAXING
MASTER
sp
TO
DISALLOW
sp
THE
sp
INTEREST
sp
ON
sp
THE
DEFENDANTS
BILL
sp
OF
COSTS
sp
WELL
THERE
WAS
JUST
sp
IT'S
sp
NOT
sp
SURPRISING
IT'S
A
VERY
LONG
DAY
WHEN
YOU
INITIALLY
SAID
I
ALLOW
THE
sp
PERIOD
OF
THE
sp
PLAINTIFF
BY
MISTAKE
YOU
SAID
DEFENDANT
JUST
FOR
THE
RECORD
sp
I
sp
ALLOW
THAT
IT
IS
THE
sp
IT'S
sp
THE
SUBSTANTIAL
{OOV}
THE
PLAINTIFF
ISN'T
IT
THAT'S
sp
ALLOWED
sp
YES
I
ALLOW
THE
PLAINTIFFS
APPEAL
sp
AND
DISMISS
THE
DEFENDANTS
AS
IT
WERE
CROSS
APPEAL
sp
FROM
THE
ORDER
sp
IN
sp
ERM
sp
IT'S
THE
AUGUST
ER
TAXING
MASTER
RIGHT
OF
THE
TWELFTH
TWELFTH
OF
AUGUST
ISN'T
sp
IT
sp
BUT
I
ONLY
PUT
THAT
{OOV}
sp
IN
CASE
THE
YES
THANK
YOU
THAT
IS
sp
THANK
YOU
sp
THANK
YOU
VERY
MUCH
MY
LORD
ALL
THAT
FOLLOWS
NOW
IS
THAT
sp
QUESTION
sp
{OOV}
COSTS
sp
IN
sp
THIS
{OOV}
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
THERE
IS
NO
DOUBT
THAT
sp
ER
THIS
IS
THE
PAINFUL
EXPERIENCE
FOR
BOTH
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
AND
sp
OF
COURSE
FOR
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
WHO
IS
sp
UNREPRESENTED
AND
THEREFORE
sp
MUST
sp
INEVITABLY
FEEL
RATHER
ISOLATED
IN
sp
THIS
MATTER
sp
ERM
sp
HOWEVER
IN
MY
sp
{OOV}
THERE
IS
NO
sp
REASON
TO
sp
ER
sp
DEPART
FROM
THE
USUAL
PRINCIPAL
OF
THE
COSTS
WHICH
sp
SHOULD
FOLLOW
THE
EVENT
sp
AND
OF
sp
COURSE
WE
KNOW
AS
IT
THE
LOSS
ON
sp
THE
SUBSIDIARY
APPEAL
sp
AND
SO
I
DON'T
PRESS
THE
sp
POINT
ON
THAT
COS
THE
sp
REALITY
AS
YOU'VE
sp
ALREADY
PROBABLY
ANTICIPATED
IS
ALL
THE
WORK
HAS
BEEN
DONE
sp
ERM
ON
THIS
APPEAL
sp
THE
SUBSIDIARY
sp
APPEAL
I
ASK
I
DON'T
ASK
FOR
COSTS
sp
ON
sp
THAT
IN
MY
SUBMISSION
IT
SHOULD
BE
BOTH
SIDES
sp
BEAR
THEIR
OWN
COSTS
sp
ON
THAT
THE
REASON
I
SAY
THAT
sp
IS
THAT
sp
THERE
WAS
NO
sp
THERE
WAS
NO
CROSS
APPEARING
IN
RESPECT
ON
sp
IT
sp
IN
EFFECT
sp
COS
AFTER
ALL
ALL
YOU
WERE
DOING
WAS
sp
ER
sp
TRYING
TO
GET
THE
SAME
AS
THE
OTHER
SIDE
IF
sp
WE
LOST
sp
SO
NO
WORM
OF
CAN
OF
sp
BEANS
CAN
BE
DONE
BY
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
I
HAD
ONE
PARALLEL
IN
MY
sp
WHOLE
sp
SKELETON
sp
ON
sp
THAT
ER
BUT
WE
HAVE
SUBSTANTIALLY
SUCCEEDED
sp
ON
THE
MAIN
ISSUE
sp
AND
SO
I
I
WOULD
ASK
THAT
COSTS
sp
IN
sp
FAVOUR
OF
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
ON
ON
sp
THAT
AND
HERE
AND
INDEED
sp
BELOW
sp
WHAT
sp
WAS
THE
ORDER
OF
sp
THOSE
COSTS
MADE
sp
BELOW
sp
EQUALLY
COST
sp
IN
BOTH
sp
ON
BOTH
ER
sp
SUMMONSES
sp
THE
COSTS
WERE
sp
AGAINST
sp
MY
sp
CLIENTS
sp
SO
sp
BUT
BUT
I
ACCEPT
THAT
ER
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HAS
GOT
sp
COSTS
sp
BELOW
sp
YES
sp
ERM
sp
I
ACCEPT
THAT
YOU
CAN'T
I
sp
SHOULD
OF
ADDED
THAT
IN
sp
RESPECT
OF
sp
THE
DECISION
OF
sp
ER
SEPTEMBER
sp
SECOND
DECISION
sp
MM
sp
YOU
sp
YOU
WOULDN'T
BE
sp
FAIR
OF
ME
TO
ASK
YOU
TO
sp
CHANGE
THAT
sp
NO
I
sp
THINK
I
sp
MEAN
THAT'S
sp
I
sp
WOULD
sp
THINK
THAT'S
A
CHANCE
WE
TOOK
AND
sp
WE
LOST
IT
sp
{LG}
sp
YES
sp
BUT
I'VE
sp
NOT
sp
{OOV}
OUR
COSTS
YES
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
I'M
sp
SORRY
MY
LORD
FOR
SAYING
THIS
sp
ERM
sp
ERM
I'M
sp
I'M
sp
WELL
I
sp
AM
sp
REALLY
GON
sp
NA
ASK
FOR
sp
LEGAL
sp
FEES
sp
ON
sp
THIS
sp
WELL
sp
I'LL
DEAL
WITH
sp
THAT
AFTER
WE'VE
DEALT
WITH
THE
sp
QUESTION
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
WHAT
DO
YOU
SAY
ON
THE
QUESTION
OF
COSTS
DOCTOR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ERM
ERM
FEEL
LIKE
sp
THEY'RE
GETTING
THE
BENEFIT
AGAIN
AGAIN
AND
sp
AGAIN
YOU
sp
NOW
MAKE
THE
sp
COSTS
OF
{OOV}
sp
AT
EVERY
POINT
sp
THEY
TAKE
ANOTHER
sp
THEY'VE
GOT
MORE
COMING
IN
sp
ERM
IN
sp
TERMS
sp
OF
sp
CASH
AND
sp
ER
AT
EVERY
POINT
I
SEEM
TO
LOOSE
I
LOOSE
THE
FIRST
CASE
IN
NINETY
sp
ONE
sp
AND
EVERYTHING
NOW
SEEMS
TO
GO
AGAINST
sp
ME
sp
IT
SEEMS
sp
AS
sp
THOUGH
I
DON'T
STAND
sp
A
CHANCE
ANY
sp
MORE
sp
I
THINK
I
MUST
MAKE
sp
THE
sp
ORDINARY
ORDERS
TO
sp
COSTS
sp
WELL
WHAT
sp
I
sp
WILL
sp
DO
IS
ERM
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
MUST
I
sp
THINK
sp
PAY
sp
THE
COSTS
sp
OF
sp
THE
APPEAL
sp
AGAINST
sp
THE
sp
ORDER
OF
sp
MASTER
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ERM
sp
BOTH
HERE
AND
sp
BELOW
sp
ON
THE
OTHER
HAND
sp
THE
DEFENDANT
SEEMS
TO
BE
ABLE
TO
BEAR
THE
sp
COSTS
OF
sp
THE
sp
APPEAL
sp
AGAINST
sp
THE
SEPTEMBER
sp
ORDER
sp
THAT'S
sp
THE
sp
ORDER
sp
THAT'S
THE
ORDER
sp
OF
IS
THAT
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ER
sp
SORRY
sp
WHEN
I
SAY
sp
THE
sp
DOC
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
BEARS
THE
sp
COSTS
sp
MUST
ER
sp
IN
sp
FACT
HE
MUST
RIGHT
sp
IT
IS
sp
THE
sp
AUGUST
sp
THAT'S
sp
THE
AUGUST
sp
DECISION
sp
BOTH
sp
BOTH
sp
BEFORE
ERM
sp
THE
TAXING
OFFICER
sp
AND
sp
ON
THIS
sp
APPEAL
sp
AND
ER
sp
THE
I
DISMISS
THE
DEFENDANTS
APPEAL
AGAINST
THE
SEPTEMBER
sp
BOARD
sp
WITH
COSTS
sp
OH
YES
I'D
OBJECT
TO
sp
THE
sp
SETTLEMENT
AND
AGAIN
I'LL
DIRECT
THAT
THE
sp
COSTS
WILL
BE
SET
OFF
sp
SEEMS
TO
BE
THE
SENSIBLE
COURSE
sp
WELL
YES
sp
DID
sp
YES
sp
FOR
WHICH
ONE
{OOV}
IT
SHOWS
{OOV}
I'M
sp
AFRAID
MY
I
ASK
FOR
ER
IF
sp
IT'S
REQUIRED
CERTIFICATE
FOR
COUNSEL
sp
MAYBE
REQUIRED
FOR
sp
TAXATION
LATER
sp
ON
ERM
sp
WELL
I
sp
THINK
IT'S
sp
DO
ERM
sp
I
DON'T
KNOW
WHETHER
YOU
UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S
BEEN
sp
ASKED
sp
DOCTOR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
IT
COU
IT'S
A
QUESTION
OF
sp
COSTS
sp
ER
sp
NORMALLY
sp
WHERE
ER
MATTERS
sp
ERM
sp
ARE
DEALT
WITH
sp
IN
CHAMBERS
sp
FOR
{OOV}
IN
sp
COUNSEL
APPEAR
sp
THEN
ERM
sp
THESE
sp
COUNSEL
DON'T
GET
sp
PAID
FOR
THE
OTHER
SIDE
sp
ERM
sp
UNLESS
THERE
sp
IS
CERTIFICATE
sp
FOR
COUNSEL
sp
AS
I
UNDERSTAND
IT
sp
WERE
THE
sp
WERE
THE
COUNSEL
APPEARED
BEFORE
THE
JUDGE
sp
ERM
sp
THEY
ARE
ENTITLED
TO
sp
THEIR
sp
COSTS
sp
AND
THIS
IS
ER
sp
AN
APPEAL
TO
THE
JUDGE
sp
BUT
ER
WHAT
I
THINK
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
IS
SAYING
IS
sp
IN
CASE
HE
HAPPENS
TO
BE
WRONG
IN
sp
THAT
sp
HE
WOULD
LIKE
sp
AN
ORDER
sp
THAT
ER
sp
HIS
FEES
sp
SHOULD
BE
sp
PROPER
sp
FEES
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
{OOV}
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
PLAINTIFFS
sp
ON
THIS
APPEAL
sp
AND
sp
ER
sp
SUCH
{OOV}
AS
YOU
COULD
sp
SAY
sp
SEEMS
TO
sp
ME
sp
THAT
ER
THAT
IS
A
sp
THAT
WOULD
BE
PROPER
sp
YES
sp
I
THINK
IT'S
BEEN
OF
AN
ASSISTANCE
TO
sp
THE
sp
COURT
YES
sp
ASSISTANCE
sp
TO
ME
sp
THAT
ERM
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HAS
sp
BEEN
AT
LEAST
ONLY
TO
OF
EXPLAIN
THE
BACKGROUND
WHICH
sp
ERM
sp
IS
NOT
ENTIRELY
sp
NOT
AN
EASY
MATTER
sp
SO
ER
IF
IT'S
NECESSARY
sp
I'LL
sp
GIVE
A
CERTIFICATE
sp
I'M
GRATEFUL
THAT'S
FOR
sp
TODAY
ERM
MY
LORD
IT
MAY
SOUND
SLIGHTLY
MORE
sp
ERM
sp
CONTENTIOUS
BUT
sp
I'D
ALSO
ASK
FOR
CERTIFICATE
FOR
sp
COUNSEL
sp
FOR
sp
THE
THIRTEENTH
sp
OF
AUGUST
HEARING
sp
MAY
I
SAY
THE
REASON
FOR
THAT
IT'S
A
sp
MATTER
THAT
HASN'T
COME
BEFORE
YOU
YOU
WON'T
KNOW
ABOUT
sp
IT'S
sp
THIS
THIS
REASON
sp
BECAUSE
sp
AT
THAT
PERIOD
sp
IT
WASN'T
JUST
THE
APPLICATION
UNDER
sp
TWENTY
EIGHTY
sp
OR
TWENTY
EIGHT
FOUR
FOR
DELAY
THERE
sp
WAS
ANOTHER
APPLICATION
sp
ER
sp
WHICH
WAS
sp
UNSUCCESSFUL
WHICH
HASN'T
BEEN
PROCEED
sp
TODAY
BUT
sp
COST
WERE
ALSO
DISALLOWED
WITH
sp
MORE
SERIOUS
REASON
sp
I
sp
SUBMIT
sp
THAT
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
SAID
SHOWED
ER
sp
NEGLIGENT
OR
sp
THAT
IMPROPER
CONDUCT
sp
THERE
WAS
A
SUBSTANTIAL
ATTACK
sp
MOUNTED
AND
I
CAN
USE
NO
OTHER
WORDS
FAIRLY
DESCRIBE
IT
sp
ON
THE
PROFESSIONAL
sp
CONDUCT
OF
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
sp
FOR
THAT
REASON
MY
LORD
sp
ER
sp
BOTH
COS
THE
SERIOUSNESS
OF
sp
THE
ALLEGATIONS
BUT
OF
COURSE
ALSO
sp
BECAUSE
OF
THE
POTENTIAL
CONFLICT
THAT
THEY
ACTED
sp
FOR
THEMSELVES
sp
AND
sp
IT
WOULD
OF
sp
BEEN
IN
{OOV}
SITUATION
FOR
US
SOLICITOR
HENCE
TO
sp
TURN
UP
sp
ER
THEY
INSTRUCTED
COUNSEL
AND
sp
MY
SELF
sp
AND
SO
FOR
sp
THAT
DOUBLE
REASON
sp
IN
MY
BELIEVE
sp
WE
SHOULD
BE
ENTITLED
sp
TO
sp
{OOV}
sp
AT
AT
FIRST
STAGE
sp
ORDINARILY
I
WOULDN'T
OF
HAD
A
VERY
GOOD
RUN
sp
FOR
ARGUMENT
sp
BUT
I
sp
IT'S
MY
SUSPICION
sp
MY
sp
CLUE
RECOLLECTION
BE
sp
BACKED
UP
BY
THOSE
{OOV}
BEHIND
ME
sp
AND
INDEED
sp
{OOV}
BY
THE
DOCUMENTS
sp
THAT
A
SUBSTANTIAL
ATTACK
WAS
MOUNTED
sp
AND
IT
WAS
IN
sp
I
HAVE
TO
SAY
IN
sp
FULL
FLIGHT
sp
TERMS
AND
MUCH
sp
{OOV}
HENCE
sp
COULDN'T
BE
SAID
TO
BE
UNREASONABLE
sp
TO
sp
DEEM
IF
NECESSARILY
sp
UNUSUALLY
sp
TO
SEND
COUNSEL
IN
FRONT
OF
A
TAXING
sp
MASTER
sp
WELL
I
WON'T
SAY
ANY
sp
MORE
ON
THE
POINT
BUT
THAT
IS
MY
SUSPICION
sp
WHAT
sp
WAS
sp
THE
sp
TAXING
OFF
sp
ASKED
sp
FOR
CERTIFICATE
sp
FOR
COUNSEL
sp
PRESUMABLY
HE
WASN'T
sp
WELL
HUH
MY
sp
LORD
HAVING
LOST
sp
ERM
TAXING
MASTER
sp
DIDN'T
sp
NO
I'M
SURE
HE
DIDN'T
sp
WELL
sp
RATHER
DIDN'T
HAVE
TO
PAY
THE
COSTS
sp
IT
sp
DIDN'T
sp
REALLY
sp
ARISE
sp
NO
THAT'S
CORRECT
YES
sp
THAT'S
RIGHT
sp
IS
IT
RIGHT
sp
DOCTOR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
THAT
YOU
sp
MADE
A
AN
sp
ATTACK
sp
ON
sp
PROFESSIONAL
CONFIDENCE
sp
OF
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
OTHER
THAN
IN
sp
A
RELATIONSHIP
sp
THE
ERM
sp
PROFECTING
OF
sp
THE
sp
ORDER
MY
LORD
IT
sp
IS
SINCE
sp
THAT
ERM
BECAUSE
sp
AS
sp
YOU
MENTION
sp
{OOV}
sp
THAT
ER
BECAUSE
OF
sp
ALL
THE
DELAY
THAT
sp
I
sp
AM
QUITE
sp
SURE
sp
THAT
POSITIVELY
INTENDED
sp
ERM
I
sp
LOST
sp
LARGE
SUMS
OF
sp
PAYING
MY
SOLICITORS
{OOV}
SOLICITORS
AS
WELL
AS
A
SURVEYOR
sp
AND
THEREFORE
I
ATTEMPTED
sp
TO
ER
ER
sp
TO
RECOUP
THAT
YES
sp
I
sp
DIDN'T
sp
ER
sp
YES
I
SEE
sp
I
THINK
ER
UNFORTUNATELY
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
I
IN
sp
THIS
sp
PARTICULAR
CASE
I
OUGHT
sp
TO
sp
MAKE
AN
ORDER
sp
FOR
CERTIFICATE
FOR
COUNSEL
ERM
IN
sp
THE
sp
CURRENT
IN
RESPECT
OF
THE
COSTS
INCURRED
BELOW
ON
THE
THIRTEENTH
OF
AUGUST
sp
SEEMS
TO
ME
DO
sp
ER
THE
sp
PROPER
KIND
OF
CASE
sp
IN
WHICH
TO
INSTRUCT
COUNSEL
sp
ERM
sp
I
sp
THINK
sp
SO
sp
THERE'S
NO
DISPUTE
AS
sp
TO
WHAT
sp
THE
sp
TERMS
sp
OF
THE
sp
ORDER
sp
ARE
ER
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
IT
MIGHT
BE
HELPFUL
IF
YOU
sp
COULD
ERM
sp
PREPARE
A
MINUTE
OF
ORDER
sp
FOR
LODGING
CERTAINLY
sp
OF
COURSE
ER
sp
PROVIDE
A
COPY
OF
THAT
TO
sp
ERM
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
BEFORE
IT
IS
LODGED
AND
sp
I'M
SURE
IT
sp
CAN
BE
AGREED
sp
MY
sp
LORD
DO
DO
WE
AGREE
TO
THAT
NOW
OR
sp
BY
TOMORROW
MORNING
WELL
I
WOULD
THINK
IF
IT
sp
COULD
LODGED
DURING
THE
COURSE
OF
THE
NEXT
TEN
sp
DAYS
OR
SO
CERTAINLY
sp
IT'LL
BE
DONE
BY
TOMORROW
MORNING
sp
I'M
I'M
sp
IF
THERE
ANY
QUESTION
OVER
sp
IT
sp
THE
REASON
WHY
I
SAID
sp
TEN
sp
DAYS
I'M
sp
ALREADY
SITTING
IN
LONDON
sp
FOR
sp
UNTIL
THE
END
OF
NEXT
WEEK
sp
AND
THEREFORE
IF
THERE
WERE
ANY
sp
QUESTION
sp
IT'S
OBVIOUS
THAT
IT
CAME
sp
BEFORE
ME
AND
THAT
{OOV}
IT'LL
BE
DONE
BY
TOMORROW
MORNING
sp
YES
THANK
sp
YOU
YES
YES
sp
THAT
CAN
BE
PREPARED
AND
ERM
A
COPY
sp
OF
THAT
TO
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
sp
CERTAINLY
sp
DOCTOR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
IF
YOU
DON'T
AGREE
sp
WITH
sp
WHAT
sp
IT
sp
SAYS
sp
ERM
sp
YOU
CAN
OBVIOUSLY
sp
MENTION
THAT
TO
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
AND
sp
{OOV}
sp
ER
{OOV}
ER
ALONG
sp
SPEEDILY
sp
SAY
IN
THE
sp
COURSE
OF
sp
THIS
sp
WEEK
sp
THE
MATTER
CAN
sp
BE
MENTIONED
IN
sp
FORMAL
TO
ME
sp
ERM
sp
ONE
MORNING
AT
TEN
sp
O'CLOCK
sp
NEXT
sp
WEEK
I
WOULD
sp
OF
THOUGHT
sp
IN
TERMS
OF
sp
I
NEED
sp
TO
APPEAL
THIS
sp
ONE
OH
YES
sp
LEAVE
TO
sp
APPEAL
sp
ERM
sp
IT
sp
DOESN'T
SEEM
TO
ME
THAT
THIS
IS
sp
AN
APPROPRIATE
CASE
FOR
LEAVE
OR
AT
sp
LEAST
FOR
ME
TO
GRANT
LEAVE
sp
DOCTOR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ALL
COURT
RISE
sp