The High Court has rejected solicitor John J. Buckley’s application to review most of the reductions made to his bills of costs for work carried out for Denis Doyle. The review concerned the amount allowed or disallowed by the Taxing Master, Declan O’Neill, in rulings on objections delivered on 13 January 2017.
Mr Justice Binchy said the review was dismissed in full except for a qualification concerning fees claimed for agricultural consultant Philip Farrelly. If Buckley could show in the separate plenary proceedings that he paid Farrelly a further €193,230.86 from Doyle’s funds, the Taxing Master’s findings would require review and, if necessary, adjustment in light of the trial judge’s findings. The judgment did not itself determine that the payment had been made.
The dispute arose after Doyle sought taxation of bills issued by Buckley, who had acted for him in a range of matters. The Taxing Master’s rulings produced reductions totalling about €752,726. Buckley challenged the rulings on several grounds, including that some bills had been agreed and authorised in writing, that the Taxing Master lacked jurisdiction to tax more than two bills identified in an earlier order, and that the fees had been assessed without sufficient evidence.
The court rejected the jurisdiction arguments. It said the earlier order required the Taxing Master to decide whether payments had been voluntary, and Buckley had later agreed to taxation of his bills without qualification. The court also found that the Taxing Master could consider client files when assessing the work done and whether fees were reasonable. It said Buckley’s lack of detailed time records was relevant where he relied on time spent to calculate fees.
In reviewing the amounts, the court emphasised that it could intervene only if the Taxing Master had made an error in the amount allowed or disallowed that rendered the decision unjust. It said the review was not a fresh, item-by-item assessment of what the High Court itself would have allowed.
The judgment considered substantial reductions on several files. These included fees claimed for sales of land to Sandystream Developments and the Greystones Partnership, and work relating to Wicklow County Council. The court found no basis to disturb the Taxing Master’s assessments on those matters. On the Greystones transaction, it agreed that the unusually high proposed fee should have been explained to Doyle, including how it compared with the scale fee under the Land Registration Rules then in force.
The judgment was delivered on 9 November 2018. It does not specify a further order on costs in the supplied text.