Yam v Wong [2003] SBCA 6; CA-CAC 017 of 1999 (6 May 2003)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
Civil Division

Case no. 01799

Between

AUSTIN YAM
Appellant

-and-

MARIA WONG
Respondent

Mr. J Katahanas for the Appellant
Mr. A Nori for the Respondent

Before Registrar Chetwynd as Taxing Officer
Hearing 30^th April 2003

Registrar Chetwynd – this matter has come back before me as Taxing Officer following my earlier ruling of 19^th August 2002. That followed a hearing on a preliminary issue. The Appellants Solicitors asked me to indicate what scale of costs I would use. I said at that time that the issue was what is an adequate rate of remuneration. The Parties have appeared before me and have introduced further evidence as I requested.

Before I deal with the main issue I would like to comment on the objections raised by Mr Katahanas to the affidavit introduced by Mr Nori. I accept that I cannot read the “Opinion” by Mr Forau as an expert opinion. The best way I can deal with it is to look at it as a comment by an interested bystander. I will add as much weight to the affidavit evidence as I would to the comments of such an interested (and no doubt well informed) bystander.

In order to dispose of the question before me I feel I should resort to the case cited previously, Dwyer v Dwyer [1976] 2 All ER. Payne J says in that case (at page 2) ,”In deciding what a fair rate per hour for the work of a solicitor and his staff, both qualified and unqualified, in the preparation of matrimonial proceedings before a hearing in court or in chambers, it is important to reach a proper balance between the necessity of curbing the cost of litigation and preventing it becoming so expensive as to make justice unattainable by many members of the public, and the no less important factor of providing that solicitors and counsel shall be adequately remunerated for their services.”

In considering that issue Payne J referred to the comments of a senior taxing officer of the High Court, Master Paul Adams. Master Adams commented on the flexibility of the scale (of costs) which he and his colleagues had established in the High Court. Master Adams went on to say, in his address to the Law Society, that it was important for taxing officers to bear in mind the flexibility of the scale so that it could be born in mind to give effect to changing circumstances. He then said, “This requires the continual vigilance concerning the movement of market rates for solicitors, counsel, experts and others”. My emphasis is on the term market rates. It is quite clear that Payne J felt that a consideration of the prevailing market rates was a valid exercise in arriving at what was to be considered a fair rate of remuneration.

I therefore intend to fix the rate of remuneration in this taxation by reference to the market rates that presently prevail in this jurisdiction. The evidence before me is that hourly rates vary from $400 to over $1,000. As Mr Katahanas rightly says, these are the rates that members of the public are already paying. It is not a question of my artificially inflating the earnings of legal practitioners in Solomon Islands. This is the range which is already considered acceptable by the litigating public. I acknowledge that there will be firms who charge much more than any “scale rate” I fix and there are probably firms who charge less. However, I am considering what should be a fair rate bearing in mind all the considerations mentioned in Dwyer v Dwyer.

In doing that I arrive at a figure of $700 per hour.

I propose to continue the taxation of the this matter using a remuneration rate of $700 per hour for admitted Legal Practitioners, $500 for provisionally admitted Legal Practitioners and $100 for Clerks.

Dated 6^th May 2003

RD Chetwynd
Registrar Court of Appeal