The Court of Appeal has dismissed Piotr Skoczylas’s appeal over a €769,964.34 claim for litigation support costs, finding that the material submitted did not establish the services as recoverable expert work.
The appeal concerned 26 invoices from Scotchstone Capital LLP (SCLLP), covering work from December 2011 to December 2017. Skoczylas had represented himself in the underlying proceedings. He sought to recover the invoices under costs orders that awarded him 40% of his allowable outlay and out-of-pocket expenses for two interlocutory applications.
The underlying case sought to set aside a direction order concerning Irish Life and Permanent Group under the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010. SCLLP was not a party to that litigation and did not give evidence as an expert or a witness of fact. It was a separate legal entity from Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited, which had been a party to the original proceedings.
The Legal Costs Adjudicator ruled that the invoices were not recoverable. The High Court upheld that determination. On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether SCLLP’s work was genuinely expert work required for the litigation, or general assistance with preparing and presenting Skoczylas’s case. The court said a litigant may in principle recover costs for necessary work that uses genuine professional expertise, including work by a separately engaged entity. General case preparation and fact-finding are not recoverable on that basis.
The invoices referred to reviewing court documents, preparing and proofreading affidavits and submissions, organising documents, and providing research, analysis and advice. The court said much of the described work was legal in nature. The invoices did not explain what the research or advice involved, how it related to the litigation, or why it required expert expertise. No underlying work product or evidence from SCLLP was put before the Adjudicator to establish the nature of that work.
The court rejected Skoczylas’s arguments that the case’s complexity, the opposing legal team, equality of arms, the statutory costs factors or the Adjudicator’s failure to analyse each invoice in greater detail changed the outcome. It held that the High Court had not erred in upholding the disallowance.
The appeal was unsuccessful on all grounds. The court said the usual rule would make Skoczylas liable for the respondent’s appeal costs, but gave him leave to file a written submission of up to 1,000 words within 14 days if he wished to contest that order. The respondent may reply within 14 days. The judgment does not state the final appeal costs order.