The Supreme Court dismissed Astra Business Systems Limited’s appeal over the scale of costs allowed to Jackie Cronin (née O’Connor) after she accepted a court lodgment in a personal injury action. The court held that the company had not shown both that the Taxing Master erred and that the decision was unjust.
Cronin was injured in a road traffic accident on 14 March 1997 and issued High Court proceedings in August 1999 seeking damages. In October 2000, Astra lodged IR£21,010 with its defence. Cronin accepted the lodgment the following month. The amount was within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction.
The Taxing Master ruled that Cronin could have her costs taxed on the High Court scale, certifying them at IR£6,455.09 (€8,196.27). Astra objected, but the Taxing Master affirmed the ruling. The High Court later upheld that decision on review. Astra appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Ms Justice McGuinness on 14 May 2004, noted that Astra’s appeal was partly moot. Under a consent order extending the time to appeal, Astra had agreed to pay Cronin’s costs of the review and the Supreme Court appeal regardless of the result. The court nevertheless heard the appeal in full because Astra said the costs issue had wider practical importance.
Astra argued that the value of the case for costs purposes should be measured by the lodgment Cronin accepted, and that Circuit Court costs should therefore apply. Cronin’s counsel argued that the statutory restriction on costs applied where a court awarded damages, not where a plaintiff accepted a lodgment. He also submitted that the Taxing Master’s decision could not be changed unless it was both erroneous and unjust.
The Supreme Court agreed that a review under section 27(3) of the Courts and Courts Officers Act 1995 required consideration of both error and resulting injustice. It rejected the proposition that an accepted lodgment must, in every case, determine the appropriate costs scale. Accepting a lodgment may involve personal and other considerations; that differs from a court setting damages after hearing the evidence, the judgment said.
The court found little or no evidence, beyond the lodgment amount, that the Taxing Master had erred in principle. Astra had not discharged its burden of showing both error and injustice. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court costs ruling in place.