Aaron's Reefs, Ltd, v Twiss

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1894
Date01 January 1894
Docket Number(1891. No. 1447 — Ex. Div.),(1891. No. 1447.)
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. B. Civ.

Before HOLMES, J.

(1891. No. 1447 Ex. Div.)
AARON'S REEFS CO. (LTD.)
and
TEISS

Myers v. Defries 4 Ex. Div. 176.

Page v. PearceENR 8 M. & W. 677.

Baker v. OakesELR 2 Q. B. Div. 171.

Forsdike v. StoneELR L. R. 3 C. P. 607.

Scott v. BennettSUNK Ir. Rep. 3 C. L. 217.

Practice Costs of discovery Certificate of the Judge at the trial

616 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND), [L. R, AARON'S REEFS CO. (LTD.) v. TWISS (1). (1891. No. 1447-Ex. Div.) Practice-Costs of discovery-Certcate of the Judge at the trial-R. S. a, Ir., 1891, Order XXXI., Rule 24. Applications for a certificate under Order XXXI., R. 24, as to costs of disÂÂcovery cannot be granted by the Judge who presided at the trial unless made to him at the trial before he leaves the Court or its precincts. MOTION on notice on behalf of the defendant in the following terms :-" Take notice that by permission of Mr. Justice Holmes, counsel on behalf of the defendant will apply to the said Judge, to-morrow, the 17th November, instant, at the sitting of the Court at 10.45 a.m., for an order that the defendant's costs of discovery by interrogatories and otherwise be allowed as part of the costs of the defendant seeking such discovery in this action." The action was instituted in the Exchequer Division, and was tried on the first day of Michaelmas Sittings, 1892, before Mr. Justice Holmes and a common jury, resulting in a verdict for the defendant with costs. At the trial the learned Judge was not asked to certify under Order XXXI., Rule 24, and did not certify for defendant's costs of discovery and interrogatories. The Taxing Master having refused to tax same as between party and party in the action :- On the 15th November Seymour Bushe, Q.C. (with him Samuels), for the defendant, applied ex parte to Holmes, J., sitting in chambers in the Queen's Bench Division, for an order to the above effect. Having regard to the circumstances, the learned Judge declined to entertain the application unless upon notice given to the other side. Counsel for the defendant accordingly now moved pursuant to the notice above given. The plaintiffs' solicitor declined to appear upon the motion. (1) Before HOLMES, J. VOL. XXX.] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 617 Seymour Bushe,' Q.C., and Samuels, in support of the applica- Q. B. Dir. 1892. Lion AARON'S Under the Judicature Act the costs follow the event unless the REEFS Co. V. Judge at the trial or the Court shall . . . otherwise direct, Twiss. 40 & 41 Vict. c. 57, s. 53. These costs were necessarily incurred, and the provision of R. S. C., Ir. 1891, Order XXXI., Rule 24, that the costs shall be allowed " where and where only such disÂÂcovery shall be certified by the Judge at the trial" does not preclude us from applying now. It means that the application is to be to the Judge who tried the case, as distinguished from the Court or a Judge. In any case there is jurisdiction under the words " unless otherwise ordered by the Court or a Judge." The former rules and practice were different, Common Law Procedure Act, 1856, sect. 97 ; Eiffe's Judicature Act, p. 123; General Order XXXI., Rule 2 ; Drummond and Smith's Practice (ed. 1889), p. 402. [Counsel referred to the following cases : Myers v. Defries (1); Page v. Pearce (2) ; Baker v. Oakes (3) ; Forsdike v. Stone (4) ; Scott v. Bennett (5).] There was no appearance for the plaintiffs. HOLMES, J. :- This is a matter of considerable importance as regards the practice of the Court. It is an application under Order XXXI., Rule 24, made to me, sitting not as representing this Division, but as the Judge who presided at the trial, for a certificate that the discovery had in the action was reasonably asked for, thus enabling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Bevad Ltd v Oman Ltd
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 18 July 2008
    ...the claimant had exercised due diligence he would have discovered that the representation made by the defendant was not true. In Aaron's Reefs Limited v Twiss (1896) A. C. 273 at 279, Lord Halsbury L. C. had this to say: "If a man is induced to enter into a contract by a false representatio......
  • Flanagan v Dublin United Tramways Company, Ltd
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 13 January 1914
    ...XV. (2) 32 I. L. T. R. 43. (1) In the Court of Appeal before O'Brien, L.C., and Holmes and Cherry, L.JJ. (2) 3 N. I. J. R. 205. (3) [1894] 2 I. R. 242. (1) [1894] 2 I. R. we get into considerations of hardship and such like, we are on rather slippery ground. [Appeal allowed with costs.] J. ......
  • O'Connell v Clayton Love and Sons (Cork) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 May 1965
    ...of course is only a decision on the facts of this particular case; each subsequent case will have to be dealt with on its merits. (1) [1894] 2 I. R. 242. (2) [1895] 2 I. R. (3) [1899] 1 I. R. 66. (4) 37 I. L. T. R. 74. (5) 26 I. L. T. R. 22. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT