Gordon-Smith J:

The facts and arguments sufficiently appear from the Judgment.

This is an application by way of Summons in Chambers (100/49) under 0.62 r. 73 for a review of taxation of a certain item in the Bill of Costs of the Petitioner.Objection thereto had been heard and a review thereon had already been previously made by the Registrar under r. 72. The item in question was No. 121 of the Bill being $3,250 Counsel's fee on hearing of the Petition.

The reasons for such disallowance filed by the Registrar are dated 4 February 1949 and show that on the Bill being brought in for taxation on 25 September 1948 item 121 and other items relating to getting up the case were by consent taken first and the taxation commenced.The Registrar demanded a receipt for item 121 which was not forthcoming and Mr. Harris asked for adjournment on this and the other relative items, which was granted and the taxation continued as to the rest of the Bill.The taxation of this items 121 and the other relevant items was resumed on 16 October and Mr. Harris produced a receipt signed by Counsel, dated 15 October i.e. the day preceding the resumed taxation.

Mr Braga objected to this item of 121 being allowed quoting 0.62 r. 40 Sadd v. Griffin [1908] 2 KB 510, Re A Solicitor [1936] 1 MLRH 127 , Re Hildesheim [1914] 3 KB 841 and the English Rules 0.65 r. 27 (29a). Mr. Harris was invited to reply to this objection and the authorities quoted, but did not do so. The Registrar upheld the objection and disallowed the item on the grounds that when the taxation of the Bill had commenced, the amount had not been paid and no receipt was then forthcoming.In view of the disallowance of this item the Registrar stated that he should deal generously with the other relevant items.The Registrar did not consider himself bound by the English Rule quoted (0.65 r. 27 (29a). I accept these facts which are detailed by the Deputy Registrar in his Review of the Taxation dated 4 February after he had received and considered the objections lodged, dated 4 November 1948, in accordance with r. 71. It will be noted that the first five grounds of these objections relate to the English O. 65 r. 27 (29a) which the Deputy Registrar considered did not bind him.Neither do I think that this English provision can be imported into our Rules by virtue of Preliminary r. 2 referred to in the notes in Mallal to 0.62 r. 40.

The short point before me is whether the Deputy Registrar was correct in applying strictly the provisions of r. 40 which reads: "The Registrar shall require vouchers for all disbursements over ten dollars".

In this connection Sadd v. Griffin [1908] 2 KB 510 and Re A Solicitor [1936] 1 MLRH 127 provided some guidance although the bill in that case was a Solicitor and Client Bill. I do not think there is any distinction to be drawn here in respect of the allowance or otherwise of disbursements in a Party and Party Bill and a Solicitor and Client Bill, and the case of Watkins v. Eden [1920] 2 KB 333, was as Scrutton LJ said at p. 343 "a peculiar case, turning on its own very special facts.

It is unquestionable that when the taxation commenced on 25 September item 121 had not been disbursed and no receipt was forthcoming at that date.The question of this item and other relevant items was adjourned and at the resumption on 16 October a receipt was produced dated the preceding day.Clearly this item was not a disbursement when the Bill was filed and taxation commenced.

It is equally clear that it would be contrary to all precepts of taxation and also contrary to public policy to allow on taxation disbursements which have not been made and are not vouched. I can understand an adjournment for production of a receipt when the disbursement has already been made or even an allowance subject to the production of the receipt, provided such is in existence at the time and such receipt has merely been overlooked or mislaid.

But I do not understand an application for an adjournment in o