Mangatal J
<doc> THE GRAND FAMILY DIVI- BETWEEN: AND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS SION CAUSE NO. ( MG WTG FAM 36 of2011 LACV0162/2012) Petitioner Respondent AN APPLICATION FOR THE 2016 FOR THE 19 FEBRUARY OFFICER'S DE- CONSIDERED Ruling Delivered Written Submi- from the assign- seeking re-taxa- Ruling Deliver- Released for Pub- TION PURSUANT TO SECTION 29 OF THE LIRE-TAXATION OF AN INVOICE NUMBER BY 2018 FOLLOWING THE ISSUING OF VISION APPROVED AND RELEASED ON 12 A ON THE PAPERS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE d by: Hon Justice Ingrid Mangatal sion received ed Attorney-at-Law rion: 15 May 2018 d: 18 July 2018 publication: 3 September 2018 GAL AID LAW 0170535 DATED THE TAXING FILE 2018; E PARTIES: Section 29 of the
By way Attorney- certifica- 180718 - MG v WTG HEADNOTE Legal Aid Law, 2015 - Re-taxation of invoice rather than RE-TAXATION RULING of letter dated 10 May 2018, the Attorneys for the SION sought what they referred to as "an appeal" dated 12th April 2018, issued in this matter by the T FAM 36 of2011(LACV0162/2012) - Re-taxation Ruling (with errora) an "appeal". Petitioner, Brady against a taxation taxing Officer, for Page 1 of3 </doc>
<doc> the Clerk referred
The Court dealt with regard to costs, the of legal view re- complained about the reduction of the process. this rep- 19%, in deal with In my ju- will issue
The Ap- C1875 to 23(2) (a is entitled in this particular case, the dispute is really about a atively "de minimus". The Invoice or Bill that Brady actively"de minimus". The Invoice or Bill that Brady was taxed down from a claimed C183,295 of documents, according to Brady Attorneys-at-Law, a reduction was taxed down from a claimed C183,295 of documents, according to Brady Attorneys-at-Law, a reduction my view, the most cost-effective way to deal with this on the papers. my view, the most cost-effective way to deal with this on the papers. judgment, it is appropriate to re-tax the Bill in the sum of a certificate of Legal Aid Taxation to this effect. judgment, it is appropriate to re-tax the Bill in the sum of a certificate of Legal Aid Taxation to this effect. claimed about the reduction of the process. claimed about the reduction of the process. C1870. In my view there is no merit in that complain- C1870. In my view there is no merit in that complain- of the Law provides that an Attorney-at-Law in a stan- of the Law provides that an Attorney-at-Law in a stan- dard to be paid fees for service, of documents, to provide sum that is in my tion of just under C182,674. Whilst d to be paid fees for service, of documents, to provide sum that is in my s application is to of C182,674 and I sent a fee from nt because section hard legal aid case, that the amount recovered. The Court relevant served. circumstances that the see Not December 180718 - MG v WTG able should not exceed that prescribed by the Court in court fees Rules provided for a fee of C1830 for services to documents in the George Town area, where the subject Further, although the Attorneys claimed that there were Attorneys had not sought prior approval from the Le- Al Legal Aid Attorneys from the Clerk of ce to All Legal Aid Attorneys from the Clerk of er 2013. The Rules of 2011(LAC/I/0162/2012) - Re-taxation Ruling (with errata) fees Rules, 2009". If the Bailiff of the documents were are special urgent at Aid Director - Courts dated 19 Page 2 of 3 </doc>
<doc> 6. Mr. Josh approved costs of these con-
As rega- considered However, Taxing of the Bi of Brady Attorneys-at-Law complained that the Bi by Carter I on 28th July 2018 when the Judge made and occasioned by the Application". However, this was its would have to be taxed in order to be crystalised. not persuaded to allow any amounts of the application. In circumstances where the invoice I am has been marked down in should be 2015 and calls or
In the ci- allowed respect of "chaser" or "follow-up" emails, Brady, have been aware of the Guidelines issued by the Director Offices to Legal Aid Attorneys dated 19 December 2017, that "nothing will be allowed for e- mails". circumstances, I am minded to re-tax the invoice in the by the Taxing Officer. Attorneys-at-Law of Legal Aid, by 18th December chaser or follow-up be same amount as JUDGE OF THE 180718 - MG v WTG E GRAND COURT FAMILY CASES (2011)(LACV0162/2012) - Re-taxation Ruling (with errata) Page 3 of 3 </doc>