The Supreme Court has ruled that a Taxing Master should have given reasons for a costs decision after the party liable for the costs asked for them. The Court allowed the appeal on that ground and said the matter should return for submissions on the form of the final order.
The appeal arose from the taxation of costs payable by the anonymised appellant, DMPT, to C.T. under costs orders made in matrimonial proceedings. The Taxing Master announced his decision on 8 July 2004, allowing and disallowing items in the bill. He did not give reasons, despite a request from the appellant’s legal cost accountant.
The appellant challenged the rules requiring a dissatisfied party to first object to the Taxing Master and seek a review by him before applying to the High Court for review. He also argued that the rules lacked statutory authority, breached fair procedures and Convention rights, and that the Taxing Master had been required to explain his initial decision. The High Court refused the requested reliefs, finding, among other things, that reasons were not required at the initial stage.
In the Supreme Court, Justice Laffoy distinguished the challenge to the review procedure from the failure to give reasons. The Court rejected the arguments that the review procedure itself breached natural or constitutional justice, disproportionately restricted access to the courts, or violated the right to a fair hearing under the European Convention on Human Rights. It described the objections procedure as a second stage of the taxation process, with a later route to seek High Court review if the party remained dissatisfied.
But the Court found that proceeding without reasons at the initial stage was unfair. A dissatisfied party had to decide whether to accept the decision or incur the expense of seeking a review, and had to state grounds for any objection without knowing how the Taxing Master reached his decision. The judgment noted that the disputed instruction fee had been claimed at €450,000, proposed by the appellant at €150,000 and allowed at €306,000. It also recorded an undisputed estimate of €42,350, including VAT, for the Taxing Master review procedure.
The Court declared that fair procedures required the Taxing Master to give reasons for the 8 July 2004 decision. It did not set out a final order in the judgment: the matter was to be relisted for submissions on its form.