Hudson & Sugden v Holding Redlich [2000] VUSC 30; Civil Case 118 of 1999 (28 June 2000)

lass="MsoNormal" aal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

<

Civil Case No.118 of 1999

BE:

HUDSON & SUGDEN

Plaintiff

AND:

HOLDING REDLICH

Defendant

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Coram: Before stice Oliver A. Saksak sitting in Chambers

Mr Robert Sugden for the Plaintiff

Mr John Malcolm for the Defendant

JUDGEMENT ON TAXATION OF COSTS

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Introductspan>

<

The Plaintiff applied for taxation of costs on a Solicitor-Own client basis.

The Bill long one consisting of some 257 items claimed for work done by the Plaintiff over a er a period of 5 years from 8^th September 1994 to 21^st December 1999. The Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant to act on behalf of the Defendant as agent in relation to Civil Case No.156 of 1994, Margot Hillel -v- Iririki Island Resort Ltd. The Plaintiff has prepared his Bill on the basis of vt20,000 per hour as the going rate in Port Vila and Vanuatu. The defendant filed Objections on 28^th February 2000 objecting to time and costs claimed in every item in the Plaintiff's Bill.

The hearing of the taxation application took place in Chambers on the following dates:

(a) &nsp; & p;&nbp; &nsp; &&nbp;;&nbpp; &nnsp; 23an>23^rd March 2000 in the morning;

(b) &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp; an>2p^th Mar> March 2000 in the afternoon;

0pt">(c) &nbssp; &nbssp; &nbp; ; 27tsup>up March 2000 in the morning;

1"> (d) ;&nspp;&nssp;  p; &nbp; p; 31 March 2000 in the afternoon;

(e) &nnbsp; &nnbsp; &nbp; &nbp; >th Apri April 2000 in the afternoon;< "> (f) &nbbsp; &nbbsp; &nbp; &nbp; s th Apri April 2000 in the afternoon;

(g)(g) &nbbsp; &nbbsp; &nbp; &nbp; 1>th Apr> April 2000 in the afternoon;< "> (h) &nbbsp; &nbbsp; &nbp; &nbp; 1>th Apr> April 2000 whole day;

(i) &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp; &nbsp 12^{th April 2000 whole day;}

: 1"> (j)  p;&nssp;  p; &nbp; &nbp; 13^uh Apr> April 2000 in the afternoon, and

span "EN-GB" style="font"font-size-size: 12.: 12.0pt">0pt">(k) ;&nbssp; &nsp; &nbs; &nbbp;&n p; 14^{th April 2000 in the afternoon. classNormayle="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">}

The Plaintiff addressed the Court inect of every claim item by item with submissions and replieeplies, objections and submissions were received on behalf of the Defendant to every claim.

Assessment

<

The assessment that follows have been made after considering whatve understood from the obje objections of the Defendant to be the issues which are as follows:-

(1) &nsp; &&nbp;;&nbpp; &nnsp; &nbp; s n>The Rate<

p class="Mss="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The Court takes judicial notice of the going rate in Port Vila and in Vanuatu is vt20,000. See Civil Case No.16 of 1996 VCMB -v- Edwin Lessegman.

This rate is claimable both for professional and non-professional time. All claims or part thereof that have been disallowed have been found to be unreasonably incurred.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> (2) &nnbsp; The Contract-

p ="Msol" stma stmargin-left: 36.0 36.0pt; mpt; marginargin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The Defendant wrote to Plaintiff on 30^th August 1994 advising the the Plaintiff that they have been instructed to request that the Plaintiff act as the Defendant's agent. The Plaintiff replied by letter dated 9^th September 1994 advising the Defendant that he had no conflict of interest and that he was willing to act. This letter was written on the letterhead of Hudson & Co as Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Associated with Blake Dawson Waldron. On 17^th October 1994 the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff advising that the Plaintiff had been appointed to act as the Defendant's agent in respect of Civil Case No.156 of 1994. As to what the Defendant meant by that I do not know, but in the ordinary sense of the word one of the meaning of the word 'agent' is that he is a representative. Was the Plaintiff therefore the Defendant's mere representative in Vanuatu for the purposes of Civil Case No.156 of 1994? Leaving this issue to one side first I have to answer the issue of whether or not by the Plaintiff's appointment as agent a contract for services was entered into. The Defendants say that no contract arose. I do not agree. Paragraph 2 of the Defendant's letter states:

"Please take ALL ACTION requto protect our mutual clienclient's interest in this matter ……" (emphasis added)

span><

By this it is clear to me that a contract had arisen making the Plaintiff more than just a mere agent. Further, to instruct the Plaintiff to take all action required to protect their client's interests in the matter implies that the Plaintiff was being instructed to do all that was reasonable for the sake of protecting their client's interest. The further implication is that whatever costs the Plaintiff incurred in the process, as long as they were reasonable and were reasonably incurred, he would be re-imbursed.

(3) &nbssp;&nnsp;&&nsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp; 0pt">?

The Defendant does not accept taintiff's costs as he was engaging a firm of Solicitors whos who were associated with an Australian Legal Firm that the scale of costs applicable in Australia would be the relevant scale of costs used here.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Firstly Civil Case No.156 of 1994 was a proceedings issued and heard in the Courts urts of Vanuatu. Therefore the rate of costs applicable in Vanuatu which is vt20,000 per hour is the appropriate rate to be applied. Secondly the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Defendant on 1^st of December 1994 this time not on the previous letterhead but on their own letterhead of just Hudson & Co as Barristers, Solicitor's and Notaries. Mr Sugden advised in paragraph one that he had recently joined Hudson & Co as a partner and that he would have conduct of their file. From the date of receipt of that letter it should have been apparent to the Defendant that Hudson & Co were no longer working in Association with Blake Dawson Waldron and should have either withdrawn or revoke their appointment of the Plaintiff as agent, or take the initiative to ask the Plaintiff to give an indication of what costs or rate he would be charging at the end of the day. The Defendant did not do that. Their silence on the issue must be taken as implying that they agreed to the Vanuatu hourly rate of vt20,000 per hour for work reasonable done.

pan style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> &nsp; & p;&nbp; &nsp; &&nbp;;&nbpp; &nnsp; Incoming Faxes

lass=ormalle="margimargin-topn-top: 1; : 1; margimargin-botn-bottom: 1"> These were objected to by the Defendant but as they have been awarded as diss disbursements in previous cases such as Hudson & Co -v- GPC CC No.7 of 1997, I see no reason why these cannot be allowed.

(5)  p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp; &nbbp;&nnbp;& A s Slip and case0pt">–

p>

The Defendant claims that this is ale slip and fall case and the time expended by Mr Sugden inen including the many hours of research and preparation as expressed in the statement of claim is excessive and unfair. This in my view contradicts the instructions of the Defendant in their letter to the Plaintiff on 17^th October 1994. I have found that on several occasions the Plaintiff had to send follow-up correspondences to press the Defendant to provide answers to issues directly relevant to some aspects of the case. Such actions could have been avoided if the Defendant had responded each time and specifically as to what was required. Repetitive actions should be taken as reasonable in view of the Plaintiff's instructions that he had to do all thing's required to protect the best interests of the client being Mrs Hillel. He could not have acted or done anything short of that as to do so would have amounted to professional negligence or in-competence. As the trial judge, whilst I agree that this was a simple slip and fall case, there were however complex legal issues that needed much time, research and preparation. Any careful and expeditious lawyers would take much time, research and preparation on the case such as this. But again only what was reasonable and reasonably incurred by the Plaintiff have been allowed.

Now as regards the Bill of Costs -

(1) &bsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp; &nbbsp; Disbursements

1">

Item

Description of Item

VT Allowed

VT Disallowed

2

IDD fax charge

430

6

IDD fax charge

430

7

Incoming fax

200

<

8

IDD fax

639

10

Travel

200

11

Incoming fax

300

12

Travel

200

13

Photocopies

Secretary attendance

550

1,667

Travel

200

14

IDD Fax

645

15

IDD Fax

213

16

Fee on Writ

6,000

20

IDD fax & local fax

Nil

415

21

Incoming fax

100

24

IDD fax & local fax

400

26

IDD fax

213

<

27

Incoming & IDD fax

915

IDD phone call

860

28

Incoming fax

300

29

Secretary attendance

1,667

IDD fax

1,290

31

Incoming fax

200

34

IDD fax

213

36

Fax charge

200

38

Fax charge

400

42

Fax charges

100

43

IDD fax

213

44

IDD fax

645

45

Incoming fax

100

46

Faxes

400

48

IDD fax

430

49

Incoming fax

100

50

IDD fax

213

51

Faxes

200

52

IDD fax

430

53

Incoming fax

200

54

IDD fax

430

55

Fax

100

58A

Fax

430

60

Fax

600

63

IDD fax

645

64

IDD fax

213

65

IDD fax

213

66

Incoming fax

300

68

IDD fax

213

69

IDD fax

213

72

IDD fax

2,365

75

IDD fax

213

76

IDD fax

2,580

77

Fax

213

78

Fax

100

79

Fax

100

80

IDD fax

213

81

IDD fax

313

82

Fax in

200

84

Fax in

100

88

Fax in

100

<

93

Fax in

200

IDD fax

4,260

95

IDD fax

430

96

Travel

400

97

IDD fax

2,130

98

IDD fax

Nil

213

99

Fax in

200

100

IDD fax

213

101

IDD fax

213

102

IDD fax

213

105

IDD fax

213

<

106

Fax in

600

107

Travel

300

108

IDD fax

1,075

109

Fax in

400

110

For service

Nil

1,667

112

Fax

200

114

IDD fax

213

116

Fax in

300

118

IDD fax

213

119

Fax

100

120

IDD fax

213

121

Fax in

200

122

IDD fax

430

<

123

Fax in

700

IDD fax

213

124

Travel

300

126

IDD fax

430

Travel

300

127

IDD fax

1,075

128

Fax

100

129

Fax

100

131

IDD fax

1,290

2 Photocopies

100

133

IDD fax

213

134

IDD fax

213

136

Fax in

100

137

Fax in

100

138

IDD fax

645

Fax charges

300

139

IDD fax

645

140

Fax

845

Fax in

100

142

IDD fax

213

143

Fax in

100

145

IDD fax

430

Fax in

600

<

147

Fax in

200

150

IDD fax

430

152

2 Photocopies

100

153

Fax

200

IDD fax

213

154

Fax in

600

Travel

300

38

155

IDD fax

1,491

<

Fax in

500

156

IDD fax

400

Fax in

100

IDD fax

860

157

Fax in

100

158

Fax in

100

159

Fax in

500

161

Travel

100

69

163

Fax out

400

IDD fax

1,270

165

IDD fax

1,745

166

Fax in

200

Travel charge

250

28

167

IDD fax

214

Fax in

1,500

168

Fax in

2,300

IDD fax

430

Photocopies

100

169

Travel

400

IDD fax

1,135

Fax charges

1,400

171

Fax in

100

IDD fax

1,290

172

IDD fax

1,505

174

IDD fax

3,223

Fax in

600

IDD fax

430

175

Fax in

100

IDD fax

6,232

Fax out

600

176

Fax in

300

Travel

300

38

IDD fax

20,855

177

Travel

430

IDD call

400

Photos

200

Fax in

215

IDD fax

4,333

178

Travel

800

179

IDD call

1,290

Travel

950

180

Travel

600

76

IDD call

3,225

181

Travel

300

38

185

IDD call

535

186

Fax in

200

187

IDD fax

2,580

188

IDD fax

530

189

Fax charges

500

IDD fax

860

190

IDD fax

213

192

Photocopies

350

193

IDD fax

645

194

Fax charge

8,000

Disallow vt4,470. Could have been cheaper by Courier Mail as an alternative means.

Photocopying

8,700

197

Photocopying

11,500

198

Secretary attendance

1,667

199

IDD call

1,075

200

IDD fax

213

Fax in

100

201

IDD call

1,075

Travel

300

38

IDD fax

1,935

202

Fax in

100

203

Fax out

400

204

Fax in

100

205

Fax out

400

208A

IDD fax

1,290

209

IDD fax

213

209A

IDD fax

100

209B

IDD fax

213

211

IDD fax

213

211A

IDD fax

430

211B

Fax in

1,800

217

IDD fax

1,505

221

IDD fax

1,290

227

IDD fax

430

228

IDD call

1,720

IDD fax

430

Fax in

1,900

229

Travel

300

IDD fax

430

230

IDD fax

2,795

IDD call

3,440

<

Fax in

200

231

Fax in

200

IDD fax

430

236

IDD fax

200

237

IDD fax

200

238

IDD fax

8,000

Disallow vt3,180 - Could have been cheaper by courier as an alternative means.

239

Fax in

800

IDD fax

100

241

IDD fax

430

242

IDD fax

430

244

IDD fax

430

<

245

IDD fax

213

246

Fax in

300

247

IDD fax

645

248

IDD fax

1,075

249

Fax in

200

250

IDD fax

460

257

Travel for taxation

3,400

(From 23^rd March to 14 March 2000 at 100vt per travel to and from Court).

<

227(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(i)

(ii)

&nbsii)

(ivan>

(pan><

(vi)

& (vii)

4% VAT on vt1,634,003 up to 1/8/98

2% VAT on vt2,984,167

Photocopying of whole file to 19/11/99.

Stationary for whole File to 19/11/99

Travel to 19/11/99

<

Charges for films and photographs

Filing fees on:

Company search

Affidavit of Documents

Answers to interrogatories

Chambers fees and summons for Directions

Particulars of claim

Plaintiff's final submissions

Temporary practising certificate.

65,360

59,683

71,550

16,205

Nil

2,720

1,500

2,000

2,000

10,000

2,000

2,000

25,000

6,433 are disallowed entirely as there was no evidence of further travelling after Item 229 on 27/7/99.

TOTALS:

461,486

16,471

<

Out of the total amount of vt475,505 claimed for disbursements, it is hereby certified that the sums of vt461,486 are allowed and vt16,471 are disallowed.

(2) &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp; Professional Costs

1,000

3,000n>

Attending call-over and perusals could take shorter.

Multiple claims already allowed for elsewhere.

Attendance on Hurley was unnecessary.

4,667

<

<

Persual and considerations of letters could take shorter time.

Item	Amount in VT claimed	Amount in VT Allowed	Amount in VT Disallowed	Reasons for Disallowance
1.	13,333	10,000	3,333	Perusal of letter could have taken a shorter time
3.	1,667	1,667
4.	27,333	20,000	7,33an>	Perusal and consideration of document could have taken a shorter time.
5.	24,000	24,000
8.	5,333	5,333
9.	20,667	16,667	4,000	Writ is a standard document. Could take a shorter time.
11.	1,667	1,667
13.	25,000	20,000	5,000	Giving of instructions and consideration and default judgement could take shorter time.
14.	15,000	10,000	5,000	Consideration is partly claimed for under Item 13.
15.	2,667	2,667
17.	9,000 Nil	9,000	Mistake of Counsel. Could have been avoided by Counsel enquiring from Defendant as to who their legal representative was.
18.	2,667	Nil	2,667	As above
19.	1,667 Nil	1,667	As above
20.	10,000	Nil	10,000	As above
22.	17,333	17,333
23.	29,000	20,000	9,333	Duplicate claims for drawing statements of claims.
24.	4,667	4,667
25.	1,000	1,000
26.	13,667	10,000	3,667	Duplicate claims for drawing statements of claims.
27.	11,000	5,333	5,667n>	Duplicate claim for client attendance
28.	51,000	20,000	21,000	Duplicate claims for drawing statements of claims.
29.	6,333	Nil	6,333	Already included in Item 28.
30.	2,33an>	2,333
31.	1,333	1,333n>
32.	2,span>	2/span>
33.	5,333	5,333
34.	7,000	7,000
35.	3,667	3,667
37.	1,000	1,000<
39.	1,667 1,667
40.	37,000	30,000	7,000	Consideration of action is already partly claimed for under items 5.
41	1,667 Nil	1,667	Already included in Item 40.
42.	7,333	7/span>
44.	10,000	10,000
46.	4,667	4,667	<
47.	2,000	2,000
48.	6,000	6,000<
49.	5,667 4,667
51.	18,333	13,334	4,999	Perusal and consideration should take less time.
54.	20,000	20,000
55.	667	667
56.	1,000
57.	1,667	1,667
59.	1,000	1,000
61.	4,33an>	4,333
62.	72,667	33,333	39,334	Drawing of Particulars of claim claimed for also under items 64, 67, 69 & 72.
64.	29,667	29,667
65.	7,667	Nil	7,667	Sufficiently claimed for under Item 64 above.
67.	76,667	6,666	10,000	Reasons given for Item 62.
69.	20,667	20,667
70.	44,000	44,000
71.	100,667	50,000	50,667	Duplicate claims for consideration of damages under Item 70.
72.	11,667	8,33an>	3,333	Duplicate claims for finalising particular already allowed under Item 69.
73.	3,333 Nil	3,333	Already sufficiently allowed under Item 70.
74.	1,000	1/span>
75.	2,667	1,667	1,000	Perusal and consideration could take 5 minutes.
76.	3,333	3,333n>
77.	7,000	7,000
78.	2,667	2,667
79.	3,333	3,333
81.	4,333	1,333	1,000	Perusal and consideration for fax could take 10 minutes.
83.	1,667	1,667
85.	4,333	4,333
87.	41,000	41,000
88.	5,667	Nil	5,6pan>	Already claimed sufficiently for under Item 87.
90.	4,000 4,000
92.	25,333	20,000	5,33an>	Duplicate claims allowed elsewhere.
93.	5,667	3,333	2,3pan>	Perusal of faxes could take a shorter time.
94.	19,333	19,333
96.	56,667	46,666	10,001	Costs of going to the library is included in research costs.
97.	2,66an>	Nil	2,667	Already claimed sufficiently for under Item 96.
98.	7,000 Nil	7,000n>	Letter unnecessary.
99.	9,333	6,666	2,667	Perusal and consideration take shorter.
101.	10,333	10,333
102.	24,000	20,000	4,000	Already claimed in part under Item 101.
103.	5,667	5,667
104.	1,667	1,667
105.	6,667	3,333	3,334	Duplicate claims for consideration of file.
106.	2,333	1,667	666	Perusal of a fax could not take 7 minutes.
107.	33,000	33,000
108.	49,000	36,666	12,334	Discovery is sufficiently claimed for under Item 107.
109.	7,667	Nil	7,667	Sufficiently claimed for under Item 108.
110.	4,333	2,333	2,334	Partly claimed for in Item 109.
111.	1,667	1,667
112.	3,667	3,667
113.	20,667	20,000	667	Perusal of letter should take shorter time.
115.	6,333n>	6,333
117.	27,333	21,667	5,666	Duplicate claims under Item 118.
118.	2,000	Nil	2,000 Sufficiently claimed for under Item 112.
119.	1,000 1,000
120.	17,000	6,666	10,334	Partly claimed under Item 108.
122.	11,333	11,333
123.	5,667	5,667
124.	16,333	6,66an>	9,666	Attendance at Court that day not necessary as Counsel would have been advised by Registrar that Judge was sick.
125.	15,333	15,333
126.	54,667	40,000	14,667	Duplicate claims for consideration already claimed for elsewhere.
127.	18,333	10,000	8,333	One letter would have suffice.
128.	1,000	1,span>		<
130.	8,000	6,600	1,334	Allow a shorter time for perusal of letter.
131.	56,000	36,333	19,667	Duplicate claim's for perusal and considerations.
132.	4,000	4,000
134.	6,000	6,000
135.	3,000	3,000
137.	50,000	33,333	16,667	Perusal and considerations for faxes and correspondences could take shorter time.
138.	15,000	13,334	1,666	Allow a shorter time for perusal.
139.	10,000	5,000	5,000	Perusal of letter to client and consideration could take 15 minutes.
140.	1,000 1,000
141.	2,667	2,667
142.	11,000	6/span>	4,span>	Duplicate claims for matters claimed for elsewhere.
143.	1,000	1,000
144.	1,333	1,333
145.	23,000	20,000	3,00an>	Perusal could take a shorter time.
146.	3,000	3,000
147.	1,333	1,333
148.	28,000	20,000	8,000	Duplicate claims for matters already claimed for elsewhere.
149.	34,000	26,000	8,0pan>	Further duplicate claims.
151.	1,6pan>	1,667
152.	10,000	10,000
153.	24,333	20,000	4,333	Perusal and considerations of notice could take shorter time.
154.	46,667	30,000	16,667	Call over conference could not have taken a long time.
155.	1,667	1,667
156.	29,667	23,333	6,334	Duplicate claims for attending client.
160.	8,250	8,250
161.	21,000	13,333	7,667	Duplicate claims for perusal and consideration.
162.	34,000	24,000	10,000	Duplicate claims for attending client.
162A.	5,000	5,000
163.	36,000	30,000	6,span>	Duplicate claims.
164.	22,667	22,667
165.	14,250	14,250
166.	46,333	33,333	13,000	Duplicate claims.
167.	62,333	46,667	15,666	Duplicate claims elsewhere allowed.
168.	67,667	53,333	14,334	Duplicate claims elsewhere allowed.
169.	51,000	20,000	31,000	Duplicate claims elsewhere allowed.
170.	3,333	3/span>
171.	23,000	2,000	Duplicate claims for letters to client.
172.	48,000	30,000	18,000	Sufficiently claimed and allowed under Item 173.
173.	48,000	48,000
174.	57,667	43,333	14,334	Partly allowed for under Item 173.
175.	47,667	26,666	20,001	Duplicate claims elsewhere allowed.
176.	24,667	20,000	4,667
177.	32,000	20,000	12,000	Duplicate claims elsewhere allowed.
178.	87,333	66,666	20,667	Partly claimed and allowed under Item 173.
179.	151,667	100,000	51,667	Multiple claims already allowed elsewhere.
180.	116,000	100,000	16,000	Duplicate claims for attending witnesses.
181.	110,000	66,666	43,334	Senior Counsel already claimed for elsewhere.
183.	10,667	Nil	10,667	Already allowed under Items 181 and 184.
184.	86,333	86,333
185.	25,667	20,000	5,667	Duplicate claims elsewhere allowed.
186.	17,667	13,333	8,999	Duplicate claims elsewhere allowed.
187.	2,333n>	2,333
188.	7,000	7,000<
189.	9,000	9,000
190.	3,333 3,333<
191.	1,000	1,000
192.	17,667	13,667	4,span>	Perusal and consideration could have taken shorter.
193.	13,333	10,000	3,333	Perusal could have taken shorter.
194.	13,333	10,000	3,333	Perusal could have taken shorter.
196.	22,333	13,333	9,span>	Duplicate claims already allowed for elsewhere.
197.	4,000	4/span>
198.	16,000	10,000	6,000	Partly allowed under Items 196, 197 and 199.
199.	15,667	6,666	9,001
200.	3,333	3,333
201.	27,000	20,000	7,000
202.	1,000	1,000
203.	26,333	20,000	6,333	Consideration of law in relation to execution and doing letters could take shorter time.
204.	1,000	1,000
205.	27,000	20,000	7,000	Perusals and considerations of letters could take shorter time.
206.	17,000	13,333	3,667	Duplicate claims already allowed for elsewhere.
207.	4,333	4,333
208.	15,000	10,000	5,00an>	Duplicate discussions for which claims have been allowed in Item 205.
208A.	5,000 5,000
209.	2,667	2,667
209A	667	667
209B.	6,333n>	6,333
210.	5,span>	3,333<	1,667	Letter was short and could have taken up to 10 minutes.
211.	4,667
211A.	11,333	11,333
211B.	3,333	3,333
212.	52,000	52,000
213.	56,667	33,333	23,333	Multiple claims for drawing of bill.
214.	32,333	20,000	12,333	Partly claimed for is Items 212 and 213.
215.	17,000	17,000
216.	126,000	66,666	59,334	Claims for drawing of bill is already allowed for under Items 212 - 215.
217.	43,667	20,000	23,667	Already claimed for under Items 212 - 215.
218.	3,000	3,000
219.	55,000	Nil	55,000	Bill has been concluded under Item 217.
220.	48,000	33,333	14,667	Preparations claimed for here would have been done at the same time as drawing of the bill which have been accounted for.
221.	74,667	29,999	34,668	Both allowed under Items 205 and 208.
222.	14,333	14,333
223.	2,667	Nil	2,667	Already included in Item 225.
224.	1,667	1,000	667	Would have taken shorter.
225.	5,000	3,333	1,667	Partly claimed and allowed under Item 223.
226.	3,333 3,333
227.	24,667	20,000	4,667	Partly claimed and allowed under Item 208.
228.	10,000	10,000
229.	47,000	39,999	7,001	Duplication of claims for preparation allowed elsewhere.
230.	13,000	13,000
231.	14,333	10,000	4,333	Perusal and consideration of a letter would have taken less time.
232.	10,000	8/span>	1,667	A shorter time allowed for perusals.
233.	3,333	Nil	3,333 Already included in Items 233 and partly in 234.
234.	26,667	20,000	6,667<	Duplicate claims for attendance and sorting out allowed under Item 236.
235.	10,333	10,333
236.	15,000	10,000	5,000	Duplicate claims for sorting out documents under Item 234.
237.	6,334	13,333
238.	32,333	25,667	7,000	Duplicate claims for considering objections already allowed in past under Item 237.
239.	14,333	14,333
240.	5,667	4,667	1,000	Attendances could take short than 19 minutes as claimed.
241.	8,333	8,333
242.	12,667	12,667
243.	12,000	12,000
244.	4,667 4/span>
245.	2,333	2,333
246.	2,000	2,000
247.	32,333	32,333
248.	60,000	60,000
249.	26,000	Nil	26,000	No further need for long letters as these have been allowed for under Item 248.
251.	86,333	86,333
252.	113,000	113,000
253.	140,000	140,000
254.	73,000	73,000
255.	Negotiation	Nil		No specific claim.
256.	Attending Taxation	To be determined.
257.	Travel	Nil	<	Already allowed as disbursement under Item 257.
Totals	VT4,606,500	VT3,477,486	VT1,129,014

<

Summary

Out of the total of the sum of VT4,606,500 claimed as professional costs, it is certified that after due assessments, the sums of VT3,477,486 are allowed and the sums of VT1,129,014 are hereby disallowed.

The overall totals after assessment are as follows:-

(1) &nbssp; &nsp; Professional C sts =&nbsp VT3,46

(2) &nbbsp; &nsp; Disburse&ents; bsp =&nbs= &nbssp; VT 461,48an>

 p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp; &nbbp;&nnbp;& &nbbsp; &nbp; &nbp; &nbssp; &&nsp;;&nsp; &nbp;&nbbsp;& pspnbbnbs& p; &nnbsp; ---------------------

>

TOTAL &nbssp;&nnbsp;&nsp; &nsp; &nbssp; &&nsp;;&nsp; &nbp; &nnbp;&&nbp;; =&nbssp;&nnbsp;&nbsp & p; VT3,9383,938,972

&nnbsp;;&nspp;&nsp; &nsp; &&nbp;; &nnsp;& &nbp; &nbp; &nnbp;&&nbssp;&nnbsp;;&nbsp &nbbsp; &nbbsp;&nbs;&nbs; &nbp;&nbp; &nsp;& &nbssp;&nbp; ===============/p>

ORDER

After due assessment of the Plaintiff's Bill of Costs IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant pays the Plaintiff the total sums of VT3,938,972.

PUBLISHED at Luganville this 28^th day of June, 2000.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge