The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court decision quashing an order by Taxing Master James Flynn which required one party to pay the costs of objections raised during the taxation of legal costs.
The underlying taxation arose from a High Court costs order in favour of Bernadette Mullen against solicitor F. Gerard M. Gannon. During the taxation process, the Taxing Master awarded Mullen the costs associated with objections to the taxation.
The High Court, in a decision by Ms Justice Laffoy on 11 May 2000, quashed that award. The Taxing Master appealed to the Supreme Court. Mullen did not participate in the appeal.
The issue turned on the interaction between Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and section 27(6) of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. The court rules had given the Taxing Master discretion to tax the costs of objections and add or deduct them from amounts payable between the parties.
However, section 27(6) subsequently provided that, subject to limited exceptions, no solicitor, legal cost accountant or other costs drawer could recover fees, disbursements, charges or expenses relating to a taxation from the opposing party.
Mr Justice Geoghegan held that the statutory wording was clear. Objections made during a taxation were part of the taxation process itself. The legislation therefore removed the Taxing Master’s power to make the disputed award against an opposing party.
The court distinguished the later High Court review of a taxation from the taxation process itself. A High Court review examines the Taxing Master’s decisions, while the taxation is completed only when the matter returns to the Taxing Master and a final certificate is issued.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It expressly left open whether a court, as distinct from a Taxing Master, might in exceptional circumstances have power to award and measure costs arising from a particular stage of a taxation.