~ Paul Baise Thank you for your question, also one which is raised at taxation often in similar situations. Older case law suggest that an Attorney and Client cost Order payable by the other side does not automatically entitle the succesful party to a higher tariff, hence the distinction between Attorney and Own Client and Attorney and Client in the older case law. Later views suggests that there should not be any such distinctions made when recovering Attorney and Client costs from the other side as in almost all cases the Court, when making the Order, were not requested to consider or make such a distinction either. It is however clear that the Court, by making such an Order, does intend for the successful party to recover costs more generously than would be possible as between Party and Party. The correct approach, in our view, is to use the tariff as a guide when drawing the bill and to incorporate therein the higher tariff as agreed with the Client. This provides for recovery of costs on a more generous (or intermediate) basis that does not border on overreaching on the part of the successful party. Remember always that our Taxing Masters at all times have a discretion in this regard, but he is also not to vary or interpret the Court’s Order and must give effect thereto.