The Court of Appeal has dismissed L.M.’s appeal against a High Court refusal to let him seek judicial review of a County Registrar’s taxation of costs in long-running family litigation.
In a judgment delivered on 14 July 2021, Mr Justice Noonan said the County Registrar was not required to use the two-stage procedure in Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The taxation concerned costs arising from Circuit Court proceedings and an appeal from the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court Rules set out the procedure for taxing those costs, including a right to apply to a Circuit Court judge to review a certificate, ruling or decision.
L.M. had argued that the Registrar used a one-stage process, depriving him of an opportunity to raise objections and obtain a review. He also alleged that irrelevant matters were considered and that the process involved objective bias. The Court of Appeal rejected the central procedural argument, finding that the County Registrar’s powers as a Taxing Master did not import the High Court’s procedures into Circuit Court taxation.
The court also rejected reliance on an earlier High Court judgment, Crown Chemical Company (Ireland) Ltd v Cork County Council. Noonan J. said its reference to Order 99 did not establish that a County Registrar had to follow that order’s objections procedure. The earlier case had not concerned whether that procedure applied, and the relevant comment was obiter.
The appeal arose from the High Court’s January 2020 refusal of leave to seek judicial review. The Court of Appeal said the High Court evidence did not support a claim of unfairness or bias. It also noted that L.M. had not identified any particular taxed costs item he disputed or explained how he had been prejudiced, despite having a right to appeal the taxation certificate.
The judgment records that the underlying dispute concerned land in Ballinhassig, County Cork. A Circuit Court order for sale was made in April 2015, and the High Court affirmed it in January 2016. After it emerged that one parcel had previously been sold, the High Court ordered that the proceeds be paid into court. In January 2017, it directed that €75,000 from L.M.’s share be retained pending taxation of Ms M.’s costs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It gave a provisional view that Ms M., who was successful, should receive her costs. L.M. was allowed 14 days to make written submissions on a different costs order, with Ms M. given a similar period to respond. The judgment did not make a final costs order in the text provided.