The High Court reduced a solicitor’s instruction fee from €35,000 to €24,000 after finding that the Taxing Master had relied on one-sided correspondence and had not examined the case papers to assess the work done.
Mr Justice Charleton gave the ruling on 22 February 2007 in a review brought by KCR Heating Supplies, the defendant in proceedings brought by Marie Mahony. The underlying personal injury claim had settled for €50,000, with costs to be taxed if the parties could not agree. The review concerned only the solicitor’s instruction fee.
Ms Mahony had worked for the company for about ten years from 1991. After leaving, she claimed personal injury arising from her treatment at work, alleging bullying that included demeaning treatment and sexual innuendo. The judge stressed that the claim had settled and described the background cautiously. The papers included seven medical reports: two from her family doctor, three from psychiatrists and two from practitioners at Trinity College Dublin’s Anti-bullying Research and Resource Centre.
The defendant argued before the Taxing Master that the €35,000 fee was unjustified without evidence of the work and time involved. The plaintiff’s solicitor offered to provide the file if requested. The plaintiff’s solicitors later resisted disclosing it to the defendant, saying that seeking Ms Mahony’s consent to release it could cause her distress. They said the pleadings and disclosed reports should assist the assessment.
The Taxing Master treated the correspondence as evidence that the case was difficult and complicated, and allowed the €35,000 fee. On review, Mr Justice Charleton found that the defendant had no opportunity to respond to the correspondence and that the Master had erred by not examining the documents to assess the work actually done. He said sensitive material could have been excised, with the Taxing Master deciding any dispute about redactions.
The judge said the assessment should begin with the work actually done, with comparable cases used as a guide. He noted that the case was more difficult than an ordinary personal injury claim, involving repeated consultations, detailed instructions and emotional support from the solicitor. The available transcript referred to €12,000 for an ordinary case of this kind, while the defendant had offered €24,000 for the disputed fee. The judge described that offer as generous and substituted it for the Taxing Master’s allowance.
He made no order as to the costs of the review, saying the plaintiff had no expertise in costs and that the defendant benefited from clarification of the law.