THE OPPRESSION OF APPEAL.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:]
Stn,—The limitation of oppressive appeals of the class de- nounced in your article of September 22nd, would be a reform by no means uncalled-for, and welcome to a large section of the community ; but I venture to think that your suggestions as to the means of producing that result are, if not impracticable, at any rate unlikely to be carried into effect for a long time to come. There does, however, seem to be a course open to those who have the framing of our Rules of Court whereby the oppression of appeal might be mitigated, if not removed.
The main cause of the oppression, the subject of your article, is the difference between " solicitor and client " and "party and party" costs ; and a Rule of Court to the effect that an unsuccessful appellant should be ordered to pay the costs of his opponent as between solicitor and client would go a long way towards making the position of a litigant in whose favour the Court below has correctly pronounced its judgment, as fortunate and enviable as under the present system it is some- times the reverse. There would, of course, have to be some exceptions to such a rule, but it would hit the cases of the class alluded to by you, and put some limit on the luxury of hopeless appeals brought, for all that one can sometimes see, out of sheer " cussedness."—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
