The High Court has refused the Health Service Executive’s application for judicial review over a dispute about legal costs, but said it would extend time for a separate review of an earlier taxation decision if the HSE gave specified undertakings.
The dispute followed a 2010 settlement of George Bridges’s claim against the HSE. He had alleged that he was harassed and bullied during his employment. The HSE agreed to pay €50,000 in damages and legal costs to be taxed if the parties could not agree. The settlement also limited recovery to one senior and one junior counsel.
Taxing Master Flynn set the solicitor’s instruction fee at €187,000 in October 2011, against a claim of €235,000 plus VAT. After objections from both sides, he declined to change the ruling on 20 December 2011 and noted on the bill of costs that the objections were disallowed and the taxation affirmed. He did not provide written reasons.
The HSE later sought to have the bill taxed again. Taxing Master Mulcahy had directed a fresh taxation, but recused herself when the matter returned in November 2012. Taxing Master O’Neill then said he lacked jurisdiction to set aside another Taxing Master’s determination without an order from the High Court. He extended time for a High Court review to 31 July 2013. The HSE did not pursue that review and instead challenged his decision through judicial review.
Mr Justice Birmingham found that Master Flynn’s notation and actions showed he had made a final ruling. One Taxing Master could not quash another’s decision, and the absence of written reasons did not make the ruling a nullity. The judge also said the Rules of the Superior Courts provided a specific route to seek a High Court review.
The court refused the judicial review. It nevertheless agreed to extend time to seek review of Master Flynn’s decision, conditional on the HSE undertaking not to reopen matters covered by interim payments or seek repayment from Mr Bridges. The judgment did not determine the appropriate instruction fee or order a fresh taxation; the extension would not take effect unless the undertaking was given.