The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application by Thiebault Enterprise Limited and John Twomey seeking to stop the taxation of a Circuit Court costs order made in favour of Mark Bundschu.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mark Heslin on 21 February 2025, concerned an order made in June 2009 requiring the applicants to pay Mr Bundschu’s costs of earlier Circuit Court proceedings, with the amount to be assessed through taxation. The applicants had sought possession of premises and damages for mesne rates; possession was granted, but their damages claim was refused.
The parties also had a separate High Court costs order. For about 14 years, neither side took steps to tax or recover their respective costs. The judge found that both sides understood there was an agreement to set off costs, though they differed over whether that understanding also covered a €21,813.79 High Court award in the applicants’ favour.
After the applicants began separate proceedings in January 2023 to have a judgment mortgage declared well charged on land, Mr Bundschu sought to tax his Circuit Court costs. His solicitors gave notice of that intention in July 2023, and a bill of costs was served in September. The applicants sought judicial review, arguing that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the passage of time prejudiced their ability to respond.
Mr Justice Heslin said the taxation process had first been activated in 2023 and found no delay by Mr Bundschu after that point. He concluded that the shared understanding explained why neither side pursued costs during the earlier period. The applicants had not established that relevant files or documents were missing, or shown how the available files and pleadings left them unable to take part fairly in taxation.
The judge also noted that the County Registrar must determine a reasonable sum, that the applicants could make a tender, and that a decision in taxation could be appealed. He was not satisfied that allowing taxation to proceed created a serious risk of unfairness or a clear and patent injustice.
The court dismissed the judicial review claim. Mr Bundschu was entitled to reimbursement of any outlay, but the judge proposed no order as to costs because he had represented himself. The parties were asked to submit an agreed draft order by 7 March 2025; failing agreement, the matter was to be listed for mention on 14 March.