The Supreme Court dismissed a plaintiff’s appeals against two High Court orders concerning his application to review solicitors’ taxed costs, affirming both orders. The review had been dismissed for want of prosecution after the plaintiff did not re-enter it for hearing within a three-month period allowed by the High Court.
The underlying action began in 1986 and was dismissed against four solicitor defendants. The plaintiff was ordered to pay their costs, to be taxed and ascertained. Taxation took place in July and November 1992, and the plaintiff sought a review that December. Delays in obtaining the Taxing Master’s final report meant it was not available until February 1997.
In June 1997, the plaintiff’s solicitors came off record and the proceedings were adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter by letter. The court was told that the plaintiff was also pursuing an application against Ireland before the European Commission of Human Rights. In October 1998, the Commission found a violation of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the case had not been heard within a reasonable time. The plaintiff took no further step to re-enter the review.
In March 2002, the defendants applied to dismiss the review for want of prosecution. The High Court rejected the plaintiff’s objections about the Commissioner for Oaths’ signature on the defendants’ grounding affidavit and the absence of an independent address. On 1 July, however, it adjourned the motion for three months, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to re-enter and pursue the review. When he had not done so by the adjourned hearing on 9 October, the High Court dismissed the review.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued, among other things, that the defendants should have served a notice of intention to proceed and that the 1997 order permitting re-entry by letter had not been properly disclosed. The Supreme Court said the letter procedure was for the plaintiff’s benefit and did not require the defendants to send a letter before applying to dismiss the review. It also held that a defendant seeking dismissal for want of prosecution is not a party who “desires to proceed” and need not give notice under Order 122, rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The court said the High Court had jurisdiction to dismiss the review and had given the plaintiff ample opportunity to revive it. It dismissed both appeals and affirmed the orders made on 1 July and 9 October 2002. The ruling concerned the review proceedings; it did not set aside the original order requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ taxed costs.