The High Court has refused an application by the first defendant to review the taxation of costs awarded to the plaintiff in a personal injury case, finding that the defendant had not challenged any specific item or amount and that environmental costs protections did not apply.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 29 April 2016. The underlying case arose after a minor was injured while playing on a container on land occupied by the defendants. In 2004, the High Court awarded damages under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 and found the defendants jointly and severally liable. The present application concerned costs orders made during those proceedings, including costs of the main action and of unsuccessful or adjourned appeal-related motions.
The first defendant sought a review under Order 99, Rule 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He argued that the taxation should not have proceeded without legal advice or representation, referring to the Aarhus Convention and his claim to be involved as an environmentalist. He also challenged some of the work claimed in relation to establishing ownership or occupation of the land and identifying him.
The Taxing Master had assessed the costs and considered the defendant’s objections. Her report recorded that legal aid applications had been refused, and that the defendant did not identify particular costs items for challenge. At the October 2014 objection hearing, he said he had no objection to the allowance or disallowance of any item, accepted the sums were probably fair, and said his concern was the absence of professional assistance. He left before the Taxing Master delivered her ruling.
The High Court said the review procedure concerns specified items or amounts allowed or disallowed by the Taxing Master. The defendant had not engaged with any particular item, and the court was not satisfied he had grounds to challenge the witness allowances. Whether the original costs orders should have been made was outside the Taxing Master’s role in assessing fair and reasonable fees.
The judge also rejected the Aarhus argument. The underlying proceedings were a personal injury action, not a challenge to an environmental decision. The judgment noted that the relevant domestic environmental costs provisions did not apply to proceedings seeking damages for injury to persons or property.
The court refused the relief sought in the notice of motion. It did not revisit the 2004 liability decision or the original costs orders; the application before it was limited to review of the taxation.