The Court of Appeal has dismissed a man’s appeal against a High Court decision upholding the taxation of his former wife’s legal costs in judicial separation proceedings. The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 5 December 2018, leaves in place orders requiring him to contribute to the costs of the proceedings and to pay €61,822.48 for the preparation and defence of the bill of costs.
The taxation followed lengthy High Court proceedings concerning, among other matters, the division of assets. In 2011, the High Court directed the husband to pay a fixed contribution of €100,000 towards his former wife’s costs, less costs due to him for two interlocutory motions. The order also allowed him to retain a costs drawer to make submissions to the Taxing Master about items in her bill.
The husband challenged the Taxing Master’s rulings on several grounds, including that the solicitors’ bill should have included time records for individual items, that a costs information letter was inadequate and late, and that earlier communications capped the fees. He also argued that the taxation reductions should reduce his contribution and the costs he had agreed to pay for the taxation process.
The Court of Appeal said the review of a Taxing Master’s decision required an error that made the result unjust. It rejected the argument that each item had to be assessed by hours worked and an hourly rate, noting that time was one factor among others, including the complexity and difficulty of the work. It found no error in the Taxing Master’s analysis of the bill.
The court also rejected the challenge concerning the costs information letter under section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The Taxing Master had found that a letter was sent, although not as soon as reasonably practical, and that the delay had caused no prejudice. The Court of Appeal found no error in the approach that a failure to comply did not automatically deprive a solicitor of costs that could be taxed.
On the alleged fee caps, the court held that the husband could not raise contractual arguments based on dealings between his former wife and her solicitors when she accepted the bill and did not advance those arguments herself. It also found that the 2011 order required him to pay the costs relating to the taxation without a pro rata reduction, and that the €100,000 contribution was a fixed sum which could not be varied in the review or appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal on all grounds. It did not review the separate fees of the costs accountant, which had not formed part of the taxation or the High Court review.