The High Court has dismissed an application to review a Taxing Master’s decision allowing €36,000 for a solicitor’s general instructions fee in personal injuries proceedings. The party claiming costs had sought €70,433.51. Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 20 January 2021 that the applicant had not shown an error that made the allowance unjust, as required for the court to intervene under the applicable costs regime.
The underlying case arose from a road traffic accident on 20 September 2007. The injured party, who had been living and working in Ireland, was struck by a vehicle while standing beside a parked car. The driver left the scene and was never formally identified. The injured party suffered injuries to his back, head, neck and elbow and later returned to Poland.
The vehicle’s ownership had changed around the time of the accident, and Garda information about insurance proved inaccurate. The solicitor named the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland and two vehicle owners as defendants. The case was eventually settled for €175,000 shortly before a High Court hearing in June 2016. The defendants consented to an order that the injured party’s costs be taxed and paid when ascertained.
The costs dispute concerned only the solicitor’s general instructions fee in a revised bill of costs. The Taxing Master divided the work into three periods and allowed €4,250 for the initial period, €10,000 for the second and €21,750 for the third. The party claiming costs argued that the reductions failed to reflect the insurance investigation, the client’s residence in Poland and limited English, and the work involved in the case.
The judge found that the Taxing Master had recognised the case was difficult and time-consuming and had allowed more for the initial period than the paying party proposed. The additional insurance-related work was not extensive, the judge said, and the €4,250 allowance adequately covered it. The judge also rejected the argument that the Taxing Master had wrongly treated the file as inactive during 2012 and 2013, noting that the revised bill recorded little work in those years.
The court accepted that work varied in complexity and that some tasks could have been performed by a more junior solicitor. Having a partner undertake all work did not mean that every task should be reimbursed at a partner’s rate. The judge also considered the claimed fee disproportionate to the work and the €175,000 settlement, particularly as counsel had assisted with the case and settlement negotiations.
The application for review was dismissed. The judgment stated that the paying parties would ordinarily be entitled to the costs of the review as the successful parties, and set deadlines for any submissions seeking a different costs order. The judgment did not itself finally determine that costs issue.