JUDGMENT

Aitken J:

The Plaintiff instituted this suit by a plaint which was filed on 13 April 1937. On 15 November in the same year, after judgment in default against one Defendant had been set aside and a similar judgment against another Defendant had been refused, the Plaintiff took out a Summons in Chambers for leave to make very substantial amendments and additions to his plaint.

This Summons in Chambers was adjourned into Court on 25 November 1937, and argued before me in open Court on the same day. The arguments were lengthy and properly so, and occupied the time of the Court for the whole day. My decision was reserved until the 29th of that month, when I read a written ruling dismissing the application with costs.* At the hearing thereof Mr. Seenivasagam appeared for the first and fifth Defendants, Mr. Kit Seng Khong for the second Defendant, & Mr. Huntsman for the fourth Defendant; the Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Briggs and Mr. Farr.

The fate of the Plaintiff's application is still uncertain, as an appeal has been lodged against my refusal of leave to amend; but the Defendants' Solicitors brought in their bills of costs for taxation between party and party before the Assistant Registrar on 15 December 1937, and Mr. Farr attended that taxation on behalf of the Plaintiff. Each bill of costs contained an item of $750 for "considering authorities and getting up the case". Mr. Farr objected to these items on the ground that no fee is chargeable "for considering authorities and getting up the case" in respect of an application in chambers, even though adjourned into Court; and the Assistant Registrar has referred this item in each of these Bills of Costs to me for my directions thereon under sub-r 59 of r 4 of 1932.

Sub-rule 59 of r No 4 of 1932 provides as follows:

In all cases for which a fee or costs are not provided in this rule, or where from any exceptional feature the fees or costs allowed are not in judgment of the Registrar sufficient, he may allow such fees or costs, or make such additions to the fees or costs of the existing scale, as the Judge on a reference to him directs.

It will thus be seen that I have to decide, first of all, whether a fee "for considering authorities and getting up the case" is provided for an application in chambers, which is adjourned into Court, by r 4 of 1932. If the answer to that question is in the negative, then it seems to me that I have to decide whether any addition to the fees and costs of the existing scale, and if so what addition, can and should be made in the circumstances of this particular application. The Assistant Registrar is of opinion that no fee for "considering authorities and getting up the case" is chargeable in respect of an application in chambers, even though adjourned into Court; but from the terms of his reference I gather that he thinks that some "addition to the fees or costs of the existing scale" should be made in the circumstances of this particular application.

It is agreed, by every one concerned, that the question as to whether a fee "for considering authorities and getting up the case" is chargeable when an application in chambers is adjourned into Court, turns on the proper construction of item 86 in the Schedule to r 4 of 1932. This item reads as follows:

The Registrar may allow a general fee for instructions for trial, for attendances upon witnesses, procuring evidence, considering authorities and getting up the case having regard to all the circumstances.This fee may be allowed in respect of any hearing in open Court whether by reason of a plaint, motion, petition or originating summons or upon an issue.

Mr. Seenivasagam, who bore the brunt of the argument for the Defendants, suggested that the last 4 words of this item "or upon an issue", cover any disputed question of law or fact brought before the Court otherwise than by way of "a plaint, motion, petition or originating summons". He contended that these 4 words are words of amplification and not o