The High Court has set aside a €51,000 solicitors’ general instructions fee allowed in an appeal arising from a Hepatitis C compensation claim and sent the issue back for reassessment by a different Taxing Master.
Mr Justice Herbert delivered the judgment on 23 July 2008. The appeal by the Minister for Health and Children and the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal was limited to the fee allowed after taxation of costs. The question before the court was whether the Taxing Master’s decision was unjust because of an error in the amount allowed.
The Taxing Master had increased the fee from €36,000 to €51,000. In reaching that figure, he assessed the solicitors’ work at €60,000 and deducted 15 per cent to account for common work across similar appeals, work carried over between cases and the short time allowed to obtain expert evidence.
The respondents argued that the Taxing Master had not itemised and objectively assessed the work, explained why the deduction was 15 per cent, or used appropriate comparator cases. The court agreed that the report did not show what work was done, whether it was necessary and proper for a party-and-party costs award, what skill or responsibility it involved, or how the fee compared with other cases.
Mr Justice Herbert held that appeals to the High Court from Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal decisions were the appropriate comparator cases, particularly similar Anti-D immunoglobulin cases. Garda compensation claims were less suitable. He said the Taxing Master should first establish what work was actually and properly done, then assess how similarities between cases reduced that work. He also said a straightforward rehearing in a civil appeal was not an appropriate basis for applying a flat 50 per cent fee in this case, where new issues and evidence had been raised.
The judgment described the underlying appeal as involving unusual medical circumstances and significant new issues. The High Court had increased C.D.’s compensation from €88,881.67 to €304,737.16, including €203,158.09 for past and future loss of earnings. Those figures and the medical history were part of the earlier compensation appeal; the present judgment concerned the taxation of legal costs.
The court found that the material before it was insufficient to determine the proper fee itself. It therefore remitted the fee for reassessment by a different High Court Taxing Master. It did not set a replacement amount.