The Court of Appeal has dismissed former solicitor John Buckley’s appeal over the taxation of fees he charged for work undertaken for Denis Doyle, affirming the High Court order refusing a review of the Taxing Master’s decisions.
The dispute arose over fees for years of legal work, mainly involving property transactions. Doyle raised concerns about charges already paid from property sale proceeds and other funds held on his behalf. Among the matters in dispute was a €600,000 deposit paid by Sandystream Limited for a property purchase. The transaction did not proceed after the company went into liquidation, and the deposit appeared to have been applied towards fees claimed by Buckley rather than paid to Doyle.
In 2013, the High Court directed taxation of two bills relating to the Sandystream transaction and instructed the Taxing Master to assess whether other bills had been properly furnished and voluntarily paid. The Taxing Master later decided that further bills should be taxed, finding that payments had not been shown to be informed and voluntary. Buckley agreed to the taxation of those bills, the Court of Appeal said, and an earlier challenge to the decision was unsuccessful.
The taxation resulted in reductions of more than €750,000 from the costs Buckley had claimed. The High Court refused his subsequent application for review. Buckley appealed, arguing that the Taxing Master lacked authority to tax additional bills and that client approval should have protected the charges from assessment or created a presumption that they were reasonable.
The Court of Appeal held that a fundamental challenge to the Taxing Master’s jurisdiction could not be brought through this review procedure. It said Buckley’s appeal was confined to the allowances and disallowances made and their amounts. The earlier proceedings, including Buckley’s agreement to the taxation, also prevented him from reopening the jurisdiction issue in this appeal.
The court further held that section 27 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 empowered the Taxing Master to examine the work and assess what fees were fair and reasonable. That power was not restricted by the presumptions Buckley relied on under the court rules. The court found no basis to interfere with the assessment, and Buckley had not established that the amounts allowed or disallowed made the decision unjust.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order, including its costs order, was affirmed. The Court of Appeal provisionally indicated that Buckley should pay Doyle’s appeal costs. Buckley was given 14 days to notify the court if he wished to argue for a different costs order; the final appeal-costs order remained subject to that process.