The High Court allowed part of an appeal concerning costs awarded after the Supreme Court struck out a motion to dismiss the Cremins’ appeal. The review concerned four items in a bill of costs. The court upheld the Taxing Master on service and the solicitors’ instructions fee, but found errors concerning junior counsel’s fee and travel expenses.
The underlying claim was brought by Noel, Mary and Troy Cremin against barrister Sean Lynch. They alleged that Lynch had helped bring fraudulent proceedings against them and advanced false claims. These were allegations, not findings in the costs appeal. The High Court had dismissed their claim as an abuse of process in July 2004. The Cremins appealed, and Lynch later applied to have that appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Supreme Court struck out Lynch’s motion on 1 July 2005 but awarded him its costs. The Taxing Master disallowed the costs of personal service, junior counsel’s fee and mileage, while setting the solicitors’ instructions fee at €1,600. Lynch’s solicitors challenged those decisions under the statutory review process, which permits intervention only where an error in the allowance or disallowance makes the decision unjust.
On service, the High Court agreed with the Taxing Master. The rules required service by specified methods, and personal service was not required. The court said the solicitors could have used registered post or sought an order for substituted service. The extra expense of personal service was not reasonably necessary, so that part of the appeal was dismissed.
The court allowed the junior counsel fee. It said the Taxing Master had not assessed whether two counsel were reasonable in the circumstances of this case. The appeal involved serious allegations, a lengthy delay in lodging the books of appeal and the significance of proceedings before the Supreme Court. The court found the solicitors had shown that the Taxing Master failed to assess the particular circumstances, and allowed the appeal on that item.
The court also allowed part of the mileage claim. It found that, given the special circumstances and the representative’s familiarity with the case, it was reasonable for her to attend counsel. But the claimed €322.08 used a rate suited to a qualified solicitor. The court allowed €238.90 instead.
The appeal over the €1,600 instructions fee was dismissed. Although the Taxing Master’s report did not explain his assessment in detail, the High Court found insufficient evidence that he had applied a mistaken principle or that the amount was unjust. The court confirmed that fee. It did not determine the propriety of unqualified persons attending counsel at Supreme Court motions, leaving that issue to the Supreme Court.