The High Court has refused Kevin Nolan’s challenge to the use of District Court costs scales when his Circuit Court legal costs were taxed, holding that the scales were permitted by law. The court did not make a final order on costs in the judgment; it invited written submissions before a later mention hearing.
Mr Nolan had brought personal injury proceedings after a fall on a public footpath at The Causeway, Dungarvan, on 3 April 2018. He obtained an €8,000 judgment against KC Cable Vision Limited and Virgin Media Limited, but his claim against Waterford City and County Council was unsuccessful. The Circuit Court ordered costs against the two companies on the District Court scale.
Mr Nolan’s bill claimed €32,986.89 in costs. At a taxation on 23 January 2023, the County Registrar allowed €2,250 plus outlay and VAT for the solicitor’s professional fee, and €800 plus VAT for counsel. The judgment records a shortfall of €24,231.11 between the fees claimed and the fees allowed.
In the judicial review, Mr Nolan argued that section 17(4) of the Courts Act 1981 barred court rules from imposing scales that restrict recoverable costs, and that the District Court Rules Committee and County Registrar had acted beyond their powers. He also argued that the scale failed to account for the work done under the legal costs principles in the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, and that the shortfall infringed his constitutional access to the courts.
The respondents argued that the District Court Rules Committee could regulate costs and that a scale was permissible for defended District Court proceedings, which are designed to resolve relatively modest claims quickly and economically.
Mr Justice Barr held that the rules committee could set a scale for recoverable fees in District Court actions. He concluded that obtaining a decree after a defended hearing could qualify as “the doing of a specified thing”, an exception to section 17(4)’s general restriction on rules imposing costs limits. The judgment also noted the value of consistent fees where District Court judges, rather than a costs adjudicator, assess costs.
The court said the claimed shortfall did not establish an access-to-courts breach because there was no evidence that the full bill was reasonable for the work done. It also found no evidence that the County Registrar had failed to consider the statutory costs principles. The judgment said it was not known whether the Registrar thought a higher fee should have been allowed.
The court refused the reliefs sought. It said the parties had two weeks to submit written arguments on the terms of the final order and costs, and listed the matter for mention on 16 May 2024.