mr  replied that is what mr  was asking the other to do, that is to hold their hand and to enter into negotiations, now i fully appreciate that erm doctor  feels strongly that the defendants have not been negotiating in good faith and have been simply dragging matters out for his benefit, now when i say that i'm simply saying what i understand to be doctor  view, i'm certainly not suggesting that i'm finding as a fact, but that was the decision, indeed i couldn't  cos i've not heard all the evidence on this matter not as mr  to address me on that one, it seems to me with all respect to doctor  missions on this matter that if there has been any dragging of feet or other improper conduct of either the defendants in connection with er they remain on in the premises and not paying what doctor  would consider to be a full and proper rent or if there has been problem about their not disclosing documents when they should have done, the position is that doctor  has  er by making an appropriate application to the court, for  maybe the appropriate relief arising out of the facts which he can establish, but that is not in general a matter which erm the court should go into on the question of taxation, it's not,th this particular taxation of costs is a taxation as i understand it that are formally to the debt of the order of mr justice  and there is thus no question of the court having to consider the question when the those tax those costs have been swollen or increased in any way by reason of spinning out negotiations whether to run up costs or otherwise, that simply doesn't arising it seems to me in this case that maybe a matter which may arise possibly at some future date, though i would hope it would not do so, but er so far as the costs down to the end of the trial of the twentieth of march nineteen ninety one are concerned, it seems to me the fact that the parties maybe negotiating subsequently to deter to rece to resolve the outstanding issue, it's not a matter which really goes to the question of erm what is the proper amount to allow for taxation of costs which have already been incurred, before these negotiations erm  we don't  the figure of the costs appears to have been  effectively agreed between the solicitors at forty two thousand pounds, the plaintiff solicitors made it quite clear that they were seeking interest, this was clear in apparently of nineteen ninety two, but this held their hand, er it seems to me the reason they held their hand rather than indicate it was because the defendant through his solicitor was asking them to do so and it seems to me that mr  was acting very sensibly in the defendants interest, because if in fact they had gone ahead and taxed their costs there and then the position would simply be that there would of been an award for taxation, in order, there would be a taxation resulting in an order for payment of of some cost probably in the region of forty two thousand pounds and er that order would itself carry interest under the judgements act, it doesn't seem to me it can be sensibly said that erm any interest has to be in any way increased by reason of this delay and it seems to me that erm  if one looks at order sixty two and twenty eight er certainly under paragraph b two  erm there's a reference there to any additional interest payable under section seventeen because of the failure on the may, erm, it doesn't seem to me that the effect of what has in fact incurred, in this case has been, caused any additional interest to be paid  and er  it seems to me the only best that i can see in the evidence before me to, which would enable the court to erm, conclude that there should be a disallowance of interest would be as i say because the plaintiffs appear not to have perfected the order for  the payment of perfectively two years, just over two years, erm it seems to me however that, that  on balance probably it simply a matter of oversight and even if it had been perfected it wouldn't of made as i guess the least bit of difference to the way the negotiations er proceeded and accordingly i take the view that erm there are no grounds for disallowing interest from either the plaintiffs bill of costs or the defendants bill of costs, accordingly erm  to allow the defendants appeal in preparation to the disallowance of costs er interest and to dismiss the defendants appeal for application in relation to an additional period, p sixty of course disallowed, i also propose to dismiss the sum of, the appeal by the plaintiffs from the refusal of taxing master to disallow the interest on the defendants bill of costs.