The High Court has refused a Revenue Commissioners challenge to legal costs assessed after a tax dispute over Wen-Plast (Research and Development) Limited’s patents, affirming the Taxing Master’s ruling of 17 July 2008.
The dispute concerned whether income from Wen-Plast’s patents qualified for tax treatment as income from a “qualifying patent”. An Appeal Commissioner ruled in 2002 that the company’s fire-resistant hygienic door set amounted to a radical innovation. In 2007, the High Court upheld that decision and awarded costs to Wen-Plast, to be taxed if the parties could not agree them.
The Taxing Master allowed senior counsel’s brief fee at €10,000, reduced from €15,000 claimed, and the solicitors’ general instruction fee at €41,000, reduced from €65,000 claimed. Revenue objected, arguing that the brief fee should be €7,500 and the solicitors’ fee should not exceed €15,000. It relied on three other tax cases in which lower fees had been agreed or assessed.
The Taxing Master rejected those objections in July 2008. Revenue then asked the High Court to review the allowances, saying the Taxing Master had overstated the complexity of the case, the solicitors’ work and the significance of the comparators. Wen-Plast argued that the assessment properly reflected the work involved, the potential financial consequences and the wider implications for patent decisions.
The High Court considered the limited review power under section 27(3) of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. It held that the court could intervene only if the Taxing Master had made an error in the amount allowed or disallowed that made the decision unjust, and said any injustice warranting intervention must be clear, undoubted and manifest.
On counsel’s fees, the judge found no evidence of error. The Taxing Master had considered both the brief fee and a separate €2,500 fee for written submissions. The judge treated the drafting of submissions and carrying the brief at a hearing as distinct work and found no manifest injustice.
On the solicitors’ fee, the judge cited the complexity and importance of the case, the detailed correspondence needed to settle the case stated, and the solicitors’ skill and work. The Taxing Master had found Revenue’s examples were not true or relevant comparators because they involved less complexity or a more limited role for solicitors. The judge found no error in that approach, so the question of injustice did not arise.
The court refused the relief sought and affirmed the Taxing Master’s ruling. It did not make a new assessment of the fees.