Grindlays Bank Ltd v. James – 1978_79 volume 2 page 264

The case between Grindlays Bank Ltd. and James addressed the entitlement of a party to claim travelling expenses in the bill of costs under section 208 of the Civil Procedure Code when that party is also an essential witness. It was held that such costs may be recovered when the party’s personal attendance is necessary and material to the case. This principle reaffirmed judicial discretion, allowing costs for travelling expenses where the evidence is essential, drawing on precedents such as Langley v. D’Arcy, Howes v. Barbara, and Ansett v. Marshal. The findings established the correct application of section 208, clarifying that travelling expenses incurred by a party who must testify can be properly allowed where the party’s attendance is required to rebut opposing evidence.

Abdul Cader