Thomas v Perpetual Trustee Co (Ltd) [1955] HCA 74

536 HIGH COURT (1954.

H.C.or A. — Tt is interesting to note on the one hand that only one counsel 1954. appeared for the appellant in the Supreme Court, and on the other Suxpex, hand that four counsel appeared for the respondent in the High

v. Court. When the junior counsel for the respondent took silk 36 oma another junior counsel was briefed. Why four counsel were Commission. employed by the respondent was not explained. The briefing of Webb g. ° & Very eminent leading counsel for the appellant may account for it. I have considered the fact that the respondent briefed four counsel on the appeal; but, having regard to all the other circum- stances, I do not think it affords a sufficient justification for inter-

fering with the decision of the taxing officer.

In my opinion then the respondent should not be held liable to pay for more than two counsel.

The fifteenth item in question was a reduction by £1 1s. 0d. to £4 14s. 6d. of a fee for the solicitor attending the High Court instructing counsel when the hearing concluded. Little or no reference was made to this item.

The application is dismissed with costs fixed at twenty guineas. Certify for counsel.

Order accordingly.

Solicitors for the applicant, Chambers, McNab & Co. Solicitor for the respondent, H. 7. O' Driscoll, Crown Solicitor for Queensland.

R. A. H.

94 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 53

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THOMAS AND ANOTHER . i : : APPELLANTS ; DEFENDANTS,

AND

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY (LIMI- TED) AND OTHERS PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS,

; RESPONDENTS.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Will—Construction—Residuary estate—Income—Trusts—Annuities—Payment out ty ©. o, A. of income—Surplus income—Accumulation—Direction—Rule against per- 1955. petuities—Void for remoteness—Intestacy—Disposition—Conveyancing Act oH 1919-1943 (N.S.W.), s. 31—Thellusson Act (39 & 40 Geo. IIT, c. 98). SypyNey,