The High Court has jurisdiction to fix a gross sum for legal costs in straightforward, uncontested judicial review and habeas corpus cases, President of the High Court Kearns ruled in a judgment delivered on 28 October 2011.
The ruling addressed a recurring dispute about whether a judge may set costs directly after respondents agree not to oppose relief, or whether costs must first go through taxation. Kearns P. held that Order 99, rule 5(2)(a) of the Rules of the Superior Courts gives the court power to direct payment of a gross sum in lieu of taxed costs.
The case arose after Judge McMahon issued a bench warrant on 10 November 2010 for Patrick Taaffe, who had not appeared in the District Court on a public order charge. Taaffe’s solicitor said his mother had told the prosecuting garda that Taaffe was due to be in Rome and that they had agreed the case could be adjourned if he had legal representation in court. The judgment records that counsel was present when the warrant was issued, before the prosecuting garda gave evidence.
Taaffe was later detained under the warrant and remanded in custody. His judicial review grounds alleged that issuing the warrant breached natural and constitutional justice and exceeded the judge’s jurisdiction. The High Court granted leave to bring the proceedings on 20 December 2010.
On 13 April 2011, the respondents said they would not oppose the relief sought. The parties then disputed costs. The respondents offered €4,000 plus VAT, followed by €5,000 plus VAT; both offers were rejected. The applicant argued that any gross sum should correspond to the costs expected after taxation. The respondents said the rules permitted a judge to assess a fair sum without a detailed taxation process.
Kearns P. accepted that judges could measure costs in simple cases where the work and issues could be assessed, while recognizing that complexity, expert evidence or complex financial questions could make that unsuitable. The judgment’s guidance was confined to cases where no Attorney General scheme had been used and where the legal issue was straightforward and resolved without a contested hearing.
The court did not set Taaffe’s costs in this judgment. It allowed 28 days for the parties to consider their positions, including agreeing costs or preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court.