The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Doyle’s appeal over the costs allowed for a motion in his personal injury case, leaving in place a €1,500 assessment by the Taxing Master.
The appeal concerned costs of a motion Doyle brought against the Revenue Commissioners after they failed to comply with an order for discovery. The motion was adjourned in November 2014 so it could be heard alongside the Revenue Commissioners’ motion to strike out Doyle’s defence over alleged failure to make discovery. Both motions were dealt with in February 2015. No costs order was made on the Revenue Commissioners’ motion; Doyle was awarded costs for his motion.
His solicitor, Ms Hayes, claimed an instruction fee of €5,250, travel expenses of €448 for two return trips from Limerick, and €20.47 for court attendances. The bill had been prepared on the basis that costs of both motions, or substantial overlapping work, could be recovered. The Court of Appeal noted that only one motion’s costs had been awarded.
The Taxing Master allowed €1,500, assessing what would ordinarily have been recoverable if counsel had drafted the papers and appeared, with a Town Agent attending. He disallowed the additional costs of Ms Hayes personally handling the motion and the related travel. He later considered her retrospective estimate that about 26 hours had been spent, using the hourly figure as a guide in reaching the allowance. The High Court declined to disturb the taxation.
The Court of Appeal said the underlying action and the discovery motion were straightforward. It held that time spent is one relevant factor among those in the rules for assessing costs, and should not be elevated above the other criteria. The Taxing Master had assessed the work and applied his experience, and the High Court was entitled to show deference to that specialist assessment.
The appeal court concluded that the Taxing Master could not require the second defendant to reimburse higher costs resulting from the solicitor’s personal handling of the motion. It said this did not undermine her ability to conduct the case herself; the allowance was equivalent to counsel’s fees and a solicitor’s Town Agent attendance. Because her personal attendance was not justified for party-and-party costs, the travel expenses were also not recoverable.
The court noted there could be a question about reducing the €20.47 attendance amount by half, but found no legal error in the High Court’s conclusion that the reduction caused no injustice. The appeal was dismissed.