The High Court has left a €15,000 instruction fee in place after finding that the Taxing Master made an error of principle by assessing it without seeking or estimating the solicitor’s hours of work.
Mr Justice Faherty ruled on 28 April 2017 that the error did not make the amount unjust. The court therefore declined to remit the fee to the Taxing Master or adjust it.
The review concerned item 90 of a bill of costs claimed by the Registrar of Companies after Arnaud D. Gaultier’s judicial review challenge to the dissolution of Loire Valley Limited was dismissed in March 2013. The Registrar had been awarded costs in those proceedings. Gaultier appealed the dismissal, but the judgment in this costs review says that complaints about the underlying judicial review were outside its scope.
The Taxing Master first assessed the Registrar’s instruction fee at €25,000, then reduced it to €15,000. Gaultier argued that the assessment lacked objective criteria, challenged the claimed urgency, and disputed a State employee’s entitlement to a professional fee. The Registrar submitted that the Taxing Master had reviewed the bill and case papers, applied the relevant costs rules and properly reduced the claim.
The High Court accepted that the Taxing Master could assess the fee on the same basis as an independent solicitor’s fee. It also found that the Taxing Master was entitled to consider the nature of the judicial review and the need, from the Registrar’s perspective, for a speedy determination.
However, the court said an instruction-fee assessment should begin with information about the hours worked on each item, the solicitor’s seniority and the professional charge for each activity. The Taxing Master’s breakdown allocated sums to tranches of work but did not specify hours or seniority. The judge found that failing to obtain or estimate the hours was an error of principle and law.
The court then considered whether that error made the €15,000 assessment unjust, as required for intervention on review. It noted the Taxing Master had a bill of costs and the solicitor’s file, and had given a breakdown that included court attendances and preparation. The €3,850 attributed to work up to the opposition papers filed in October 2012 covered taking instructions, liaising with the Attorney General’s office and obtaining a report from the Revenue Commissioners. The Taxing Master had considered that work essential to opposing the judicial review.
Finding sufficient material to assess whether the fee was within a reasonable range, the High Court held that €15,000 was an amount reasonably open to the Taxing Master. No remittal or adjustment was ordered.